Ram Kishor Arora vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~74 to 77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 11.02.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF
+ W.P.(C) 10324/2025 and CM APPL. 42872/2025
RAM KISHOR ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Yash Datt, Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. O.P. Gaggar with Mr. Sachindra
Karn Advocates for R-2.
75
+ W.P.(C) 10458/2025 and CM APPL. 43445/2025
SANGITA ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Yash Datt, Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey CGSC
alongwith Ms Gurleen Kaur Waraich
and Mr Kritarth Upadhyay Advocates
for R-1 to 3.
Mr. O.P. Gaggar with Mr. Sachindra
Karn Advocates for R-2.
76
+ W.P.(C) 10465/2025 and CM APPL. 43461/2025
SANGITA ARORA .....Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Yash Datt, Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout standing
counsel for BOB
77
+ W.P.(C) 10486/2025 and CM APPL. 43548/2025

RAM KISHOR ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Yash Datt, Mr.
Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout standing
counsel for BOB
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners namely, Ram Kishor Arora and Sangita Arora both
were the Promoters and Directors of M/s. Supertech Limited and M/s.
Supertech Realtors Private Limited. The companies seem to have obtained
credit facilities from the Union Bank of India for developing various
residential and commercial projects in the National Capital Region („NCR‟)
region particularly in the Noida and Greater Noida region. Both the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

petitioners stood as a guarantor of the said loan taken by the companies.
2. In other connected matters, the loan facility was availed from Bank of
Baroda. Except a slight difference on the amount in question and the date
and event, other facts and circumstances are largely the same.
3. The overall dues against both the companies seem to be more than a
thousand Crore. The respondent-Banks initiated recovery proceedings
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Banks then purportedly realised the
potential diversion of funds by the borrower and the books of account as
available with them reflected the circumstances. They, therefore, directed
for forensic audit, internal audit and internal investigation into the accounts
in order to ascertain the correct position. Thereafter, various irregularities
surfaced pursuant to which, the respondent-Banks have triggered, and set in
motion, criminal proceedings by filing a complaint before the Investigating
Agencies.
4. At the instance of one of the Banks, which is not a party in the instant
petitions, however, is part of the consortium, the CBI has taken up the
investigation. Before the investigation could be taken up by the CBI at the
instance of the respondent-Bank, the Look Out Circular („LOC‟) was opened
against the petitioners. They challenge the validity of the LOC on various
grounds.
5. With respect to the same companies, the petitioners‟ son namely,
Mohit Arora filed two writ petitions before this Court, which were registered
as W.P. (C) 8073/2021 and W.P. (C) 4460/2023. Vide judgment dated
12.07.2024, both the writ petitions were allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Banks tries to
distinguish the said decision on the ground that the petitioner therein
namely, Mohit Arora was no more the Director after the year 2017,
however, all those aspects at this stage may not be required to be looked into
as the complicity of the petitioners herein will have to be thoroughly
investigated by the Investigating Agencies. If the petitioners‟ complicity is
found, necessary action will have to be taken in accordance with law.
1
7. This Court in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. ,
while taking note of various decisions, inter alia, in Maneka Gandhi v.
2 3
Union of India , Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and Viraj Chetan
4
Shah v. Union of India , has copiously reiterated that LOC is a coercive
executive measure that directly impinges upon the fundamental right to
travel, which forms an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. It was also emphasised that continuance of an LOC cannot
be for an indefinite period of time and must withstand strict judicial scrutiny
on the touchstone of various factors like necessity, proportionality, fairness,
and due process. Thus, it was held that where the subject has cooperated
with investigation and there is no demonstrable requirement for restraint,
continuation of the LOC would be arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The
relevant extract of the aforenoted decision reads as under: -
“ 10.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:

1
2026 :DHC:1616
2
(1978) 1 SCC 248
3
2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699
4
2024 SCC Online Bom 1195
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

(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, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court having jurisdiction
over the concerned police station, upon an appropriate application. ”

8. On the anvil of the aforenoted principles, there does not seem to be
any other distinguishable feature, which would detain the Court from
passing similar directions as has been passed in the case of Mohit Arora. It is
an unequivocal position taken by the petitioners that they have never
obstructed the investigation or have avoided the enquiry in any manner
whatsoever. They undertake that they will fully co-operate with the
Investigating Agencies in taking the investigation to its logical conclusion.
9. It is submitted that in one of the matters, which relates to IDBI Bank,
after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the
Special Judge (CBI), Rouse Avenue Courts; however, cognizance has not
yet been taken.
10. In view of these facts and circumstances, there is no reason to keep
these petitions pending and to allow the LOC remains in existence. The
LOC seems to have served its purpose. The same is, therefore, set aside
subject to following directions:-
(i) The petitioners to submit an undertaking on an affidavit before the CBI
affirming that they shall continue to co-operate in the investigation, if any,
and shall appear before the Investigating Agency as and when they are
required;
(ii) They shall produce all material/ documents requested from them by the
Investigating Agency as may be available within their power/ possession;
(iii) Henceforth, they shall furnish a full itinerary before the Investigating
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

Agency seven days before undertaking any journey abroad;
(iv) After taking of the cognizance, the petitioners will have to take the
permission for travelling abroad from the concerned competent Court;
(v) In case the investigating agency or the Court has any reservation about
the petitioners‟ travel, the Investigating Agency shall be entitled either to
restrain them or to direct for issuance of a fresh LOC.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petitions stand disposed of
along with all pending applications.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2026
Nc/mj

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV