Businessman C. Sivasankaran may travel abroad under conditions, with Madras High Court reducing required security to ₹25 crore

The petitioner challenged a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued in connection with criminal cases initiated by the CBI, SFIO and Enforcement Directorate.

Earlier challenges to the LOC had been dismissed.

In W.P. No. 27856 of 2024, the High Court permitted foreign travel subject to conditions, including furnishing ₹50 crore security; the LOC would stand suspended during travel when those conditions were met

After the petitioner withdrew that security, the Court directed him to remain in India

In the present petition, he relied on changed circumstances, including payments towards settlement of civil liabilities: ₹190 crore in relation to the IL&FS account and ₹130 crore towards the IDBI account.

He ultimately offered to furnish ₹25 crore security instead of ₹50 crore

1. Whether the petitioner’s asserted settlements and other changed circumstances justified permitting foreign travel despite the subsisting LOC

2. Whether the security condition imposed by the Court’s earlier order should be modified from ₹50 crore to ₹25 crore

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court applied the conditions imposed in its order dated 21 December 2024 in W.P. No. 27856 of 2024, under which foreign travel was permitted subject to safeguards, including a personal bond, sureties, security, travel intimation, and suspension of the LOC only during travel

The Court did not cite or formulate any separate statutory rule or precedent in this order.

The Court considered the petitioner’s payments towards the civil liabilities and his willingness to provide ₹25 crore security, as well as his affidavit identifying the sources of payments towards the IDBI settlement, which the Court viewed as demonstrating cooperation with law-enforcement authorities

Although the respondents argued that the settlements did not extinguish the petitioner’s criminal liability and opposed reducing the security, the Court concluded that the circumstances warranted continuing the earlier conditional travel arrangement, with a reduced security requirement

The LOC was not unconditionally withdrawn; it remained subject to the earlier order’s conditions, including suspension only during travel in accordance with those conditions.