Abhishek Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors

$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15042/2025
Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Mr. Abhiraj
Chaoudhary, Ms. Mili Tomar, Mr.
Shivam Bhimsaria and Ms. Akansha
Singhania, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi
Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr.
Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik,
Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Seemant K.
Garg, Mr. Nitin Pal, Advocates for R-
3./ Bank.
Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for R-
8.
Mr Tushar Sannu and Ms Pulak
Gupta Joshi, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 15042/2025 Page 1 of 4

The petition is for the following reliefs:
a) Issue Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondents to disclose and place on
record before this Hon’ble Court the following details as on the date of filing of
the instant Petition and also provide to the Petitioner.
I. Date of issuance of LoC, issued against the Petitioner by the
Respondent No 2. And;
II. Details/reasons of the issuance of LoC, including restrictions
placed on the travel of the Petitioner abroad. And;
III. To issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the said LoC issued by Respondent No 2
and all consequential actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to the issuance
of LoC;
And/or
b) Pass such other and further Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case and in the interest of justice.
2. The Petitioner is a Director and personal guarantor of Gupta Power
Infrastructure Ltd., a company engaged in the business of manufacturing
electrical cables, conductors, and execution of EPC contracts. The said
company had availed various credit facilities from a consortium of banks
comprising Respondent Nos. 3 to 14.
3. Subsequently, the consortium lenders-initiated proceedings against
the Company and its guarantors under various statutes. During a consortium
meeting held in April 2025, the respondent - Banks informed the petitioner
that they were in the process of issuing Look Out Circulars against him, but
no written communication or details were provided.
4. In order to ascertain the existence and details of any LOC, the
petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005
on 18.06.2025. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs declined to furnish
the requested information vide reply dated 08.07.2025, citing exemption
under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
5. The controversy involved in the instant matter is covered by the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 15042/2025 Page 2 of 4

decision passed by this Court in the case of Vineet Gupta vs. Union of
1
India , . In paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment, this Court has held as
under:
“ 28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it is
seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance,
continuance, and judicial review of LOC:
(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a
substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms
an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the
power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in
accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions
prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda;
(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable
offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible
material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately
evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and
proximate likelihood of absconding;
(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the
Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed
and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where,
the proposed departure of subject poses a clear and grave threat to
the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or
economic interests in a national or systemic sense, or the larger
public interest;
(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing
Director, or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks,
would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus,
as of now, the LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot be
sustained and are liable to be quashed;
(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to
subject the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny,
balancing the legitimate interests of the State with the individual‟s
fundamental rights, and to quash such circulars where the restraint
imposed is found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in
statutory backing, or violative of the principles of fairness,
reasonableness, and due process. Ultimately, the burden lies
squarely upon the “originating agencies” to justify, the necessity,

1
2026:DHC:1616
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 15042/2025 Page 3 of 4

proportionality, and legality of the restraint, failing which such
action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that the
continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically
reviewed. Where it is evident from the record that the subject has
cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded the process of
law, and where no further interrogation or presence is
demonstrably required, the continued operation of an LOC would
amount to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal
liberty;
(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court
is not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a
person against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer
Singh Salkan , a person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the
first instance, required to join the investigation or surrender before
the jurisdictional Court, or otherwise satisfy the Court that the
LOC is unwarranted. The individual may also approach the
authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and seek its
withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-application of mind.
An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may
also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court
having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon an
appropriate application.”

6. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner, is
almost similar to the case of Vineet Gupta . The petitioner and Mr. Vineet
Gupta both stood as a personal guarantor.
7. In view thereof, the LOC issued at the instance of Banks stands
quashed, with same liberty to the respondent-Bank, as has been granted in
the case of Vineet Gupta.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition, along with pending
application(s), if any, stands disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2026/ aks/ss.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
13:00:44
W.P.(C) 15042/2025 Page 4 of 4