Yatin Jindal vs Bureau Of Immigration & Anr.

$~42 to 44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5609/2024, CM APPL. 23092/2024 & CM APPL.
29388/2024
Date of Decision : 18.02.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:

SMT. MANJU JINDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prithu Garg, Mr. Shivam Singh,
Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Kumar,
Advocates.

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms Radhika Bishwajit Dubey CGSC,
Ms Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr
Kritarth Upadhyay and Mr Amulya
Dev Mishra, Advs for R-1.
43
+ W.P.(C) 6719/2024, CM APPL. 27974/2024 & CM APPL.
29398/2024

MR. SUNIL JINDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prithu Garg, Mr. Shivam Singh,
Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Kumar,
Advocates.

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Chetan Jadon, Adv. for R-1.

44
+ W.P.(C) 6748/2024, CM APPL. 28132/2024 & CM APPL.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:28:25

29395/2024

YATIN JINDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prithu Garg, Mr. Shivam Singh,
Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Kumar,
Advocates.

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC Ms.
Kavya Shukla, Mr. Vineet Negi, Mr.
Naman Sharma and Mr. Theresa,
Advs.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. These petitions filed by the petitioners are against the Look Out
Circular [‘ LOC ’] issued at the instance of the respondent-Bank of Baroda.
2. The petitioners are the directors/promoters/guarantors of the company
named M/s Pomegranate Coaters Private Limited (earlier known as M/s JMJ
Industries Private Limited). The said company was engaged in the
manufacturing of cotton-coated fabrics, rexine, and footwear, and had
availed various credit facilities from the respondent no. 2-bank. The
respondent no. 2-bank seems to have taken various steps to recover the dues,
including initiation of recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:28:25

Act, 2002, and the Recovery of Debts Due to Financial Institutions Act,
1993.
3. Simultaneously, LOC also seems to have been opened against the
petitioners, at the instance of the respondent no. 2-bank.
4. It is noted that till date, no criminal investigation has been initiated
against the petitioners, and no FIR is pending against them. Therefore, there
is no question of their non-cooperation with any of the investigating
agencies.

5. The power to open LOC at the instance of public-sector banks under
Office Memorandum No.25016/10/2017 issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs has been struck down by the High Court of Bombay in Viraj Chetan
1
Shah v. Union of India .
6. Under almost similar circumstances, this Court, in Vineet Gupta v.
2
Bureau of Immigration & Ors . has also set aside an LOC opened at the
instance of a public sector bank. Paragraph Nos.10 to 16 of the same are
extracted as under:
10. The Bombay High Court, in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah v.
3
Union of India , has struck down Clause 6(B)(xv) of the Guidelines of
2021 as bad in law on the ground of arbitrariness, unreasonableness,
improper and invalid classification, and conferment/delegation of
uncanalised and excessive power. This Court, has stopped short of striking
down the said provision, but has followed the decision in Viraj Chetan
Shah towards placing fretters on any unbridled invocation of Look Out
Circulars under the same. Reference can be made to the decisions in
Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India and Prateek Chitkara v. Union
of India Vinay Mittal & Anr v. Bank Of Baroda & Ors.
11. Placing reliance on the decision in Viraj Chetan Shah, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents tries to explain the concept of
economic interest. He asserts that the vast sum of public money which is

1
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195
2
W.P.(C) 7726/2024 dated 22.01.2026
3
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:28:25

due against the Company renders the present case within the scope of the
term „detrimental to the economic interests of India‟.

12. However, at the outset, it is to be noted that according to
respondents‟ own affidavit, the impugned action has been initiated as a
measure of „abundant caution‟. The Guidelines of 2021, nowhere,
empower the authorities to take recourse to such a drastic action only as a
measure of „abundant caution‟. There must exist sufficient material with
the respondents to invoke action for opening of a Look Out Circular. The
counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 2-bank is completely silent on
these aspects.
13. Further, this Court has examined the power to issue Look Out
Circulars on the ground that departure of the subject from India would be
detrimental to the economic interests of India, in a plethora of cases,
including in the case of Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India . The
question for consideration before the Court was whether Look Out
Circulars can be opened at the instance of banks only because of the
failure on the part of a borrower to repay loans for which the LOC subject
stood as a personal guarantor. After observing that the right to travel
abroad has been recognized as an integral part of the fiundamental right
to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India the Court
held that banks cannot open a Look Out Circular as an arm-twisting tactic
to recover debts, especially when the subject is not engaged in any fraud
or in any siphoning off or defalcation of the amounts given as loan.
14. The Court also took note of the decision in Prateek Chitkara v.
4
Union of India , wherein, the term „detrimental to economic interest‟ used
in Guildelines of 2021 has been analysed by the Court. The Court was of
the opinion that the said term would include „squandering of public
money‟, „siphoning off amounts taken as loans from banks‟, „defrauding
epositors‟, „investing in hawala transactions‟ etc. It further held that Look
Out Circulars cannot be issued in every case of bank loan defaults, etc. Th
relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:
“82. The term “detrimental to economic interest” used in the Office
Memorandum is not defined. Some cases may require the issuance of
a look-out circular, if it is found that the conduct of the individuals
concerned affects public interest as a whole or has an adverse
impact on the economy. Squandering of public money, siphoning off
amounts taken as loans from banks, defrauding depositors, indulging
in hawala transactions may have a greater impact as a whole which
may justify the issuance of look-out circulars. However, issuance of
look-out circulars cannot be resorted to in each and every case of
bank loan defaults or credit facilities availed of for business, etc.
Citizens ought not to be harassed and deprived of their liberty to

4
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6104
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:28:25

travel, merely due to their participation in a business, whether in a
professional or a nonexecutive capacity. The circumstances have to
reveal a higher gravity and a larger impact on the country.”
15. While the dues against the Company is, of course, in respect of a
large sum, regard has to be had to the fact that the petitioner has not been
accused of any cognizable offence under the penal laws and the only
reason for the issue of a Look Out Circular against him is the fact that he
is a personal guarantor in respect of the loan. Further, while the case of
respondent no. 2-bank is that the promoters/directors of the Company
have siphoned of the money, it is not their case that the petitioner has also
taken part in the same. This Court in its decision in Anastasiia Pivtsaeva
5
& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. has held that mere association or a
familial relationship with an accused, absent any concrete material
showing direct involvement or complicity in the alleged offence, cannot
justify adverse action such as denial of security clearance or the
continuation of coercive measures. In Rajesh Kumar Mehta , this Court,
when faced with a similar situation, has held as follows:
“25. Lookout Circular has been issued against the Petitioner only
because of the inability of the company to repay its debts for which
the Petitioner stood guarantee. There are no criminal proceedings
against the Petitioner and there is no allegation that the Petitioner
was instrumental in defalcation or siphoning off the money. The
Bank has already initiated steps against the Petitioner and the
company by taking steps under the RDDB Act, SARFAESI Act and
under the IBC. This Court is of the opinion that after resorting to all
the remedies available in law, the Bank cannot open a Lookout
Circular as an arm-twisting tactic to recover debt from a person who
is otherwise unable to pay more so when there are no allegations
that he was engaged in any fraud or in any siphoning off or
defalcation of the amounts given as loan.”

16. Having considered the overall conspectus of the facts and
situations, aspecially, in light of the fact that the petitioner was neither a
director of the Company, nor was involved in any of its day to day
functioning, and that the respondent-banks have already taken recourse to
appropriate proceedings for recovery of the money, the Court finds that
there is no justification for continuation of the impugned Look Out
Circulars.”

7. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, there does not
seem to be any justification to continue the LOCs in question, and
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:28:25

accordingly, the same stand set aside.
8. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to take any other
appropriate action in accordance with law.
9. Petitions stand disposed of.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2026/p/amg







5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:28:25