TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 34618/2025, CM APPL. 44241/2025, W.P.(C) 9610/2023 and CM APPL. 36814/2023, CM APPL. 15072/2026, W.P.(C) 10895/2023 and CM APPL. 60224/2023, CM APPL. 74501/2024, CM APPL. 24992/2026, CM APPL. 24993/2026, W.P.(C) 1942/2023 and CM APPL. 7375/2023, CM APPL. 16406/2023, W.P.(C) 1962/2023 and CM APPL. 7514/2023, CM APPL. 16835/2023, W.P.(C) 16550/2023 and CM APPL. 66691/2023, W.P.(C) 7503/2024 and CM APPL. 31297/2024, W.P.(C) 8252/2024 and CM APPL. 33976/2024, W.P.(C) 14518/2024 and CM APPL. 60811/2024, W.P.(C) 16610/2024 and CM APPL. 15887/2025, W.P.(C) 18812/2025 and CM APPL. 78282/2025, W.P.(C) 1875/2025, W.P.(C) 950/2025 and CM APPL. 33832/2025, CM APPL. 2310/2026, W.P.(C) 549/2025 and CM APPL. 2490/2025, W.P.(C) 1304/2025 and CM APPL. 14877/2026, W.P.(C) 3904/2025 and CM APPL. 18131/2025, CM APPL. 20275/2026, W.P.(C) 4065/2025 and CM APPL. 18907/2025, W.P.(C) 4612/2025 and CM APPL. 21352/2025, CM APPL. 6005/2026, W.P.(C) 8859/2025, W.P.(C) 11461/2025, W.P.(C) 11972/2025, W.P.(C) 15146/2025 and CM APPL. 69910/2025, CM APPL. 16892/2026, W.P.(C) 19065/2025 and CM APPL. 14847/2026, CM APPL. 20164/2026, W.P.(C) 1196/2026 and CM APPL. 5863/2026, W.P.(C) 2799/2026, W.P.(C) 4066/2026, W.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pankush Goyal, Advocates in W.P.C/2799/2026. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal and Ms. Vishakha Kaushik, Advocates in W.P.(C) 16550/2023. Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates in WP(C) 18812/2025. Mr. Shubhendu Bhattacharyya and Mr. Shubhit Shokeen, Advocates in W.P.(C) 9610/2023, W.P.(C) 11461/2025 and W.P.(C) 11972/2025. Mr. Vartul Vishnoi, Mr. Nimish Chib Advocates in W.P.(C) 1942/2023 and W.P.(C) 1962/2023. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Ms. Neha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Ms. Nishtha Juneja, Mr. Sulakshan VS, Mr. Himanshu Kasturi, Ms. Shivani Sharma and Ms. Vidisha Bajaj, Advocates in W.P.(C) 1196/2026. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Pankush Goyal, Mr. Vishal Gourav, Mr. Yash Agrawal, Mr. Siddharth Bhardwaj, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Advocates in W.P.(C) 5126/2026. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Mr. Ayush Sachan, Advocates in W.P.(C) 4066/2026. For the Respondents: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra Advocates in W.P.(C) 17646/2022. Mr. Rakesh Kumar SPC With Mr. Sunil, Advocates for UOI in W.P.(C) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 549/2025. Mr. Arun Aggarwal with Mr. Lovelesh Kukreja, Advs. for R-3 in W.P.(C) 549/2025. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, ADV Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Adv, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocates in W.P.(C)-1304/2025. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Adv, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Adv, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Adv, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocates for SFIO in W.P.(C) 3904/2025 and W.P.(C) 11461/2025. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik and Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C) 4065/2025. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms. Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC for R-2 in W.P.(C) 4065/2025. Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for Central Bank of India in W.P.(C) 4066/2026. Mr. Sanjay Bajaj and Mr. Rajat Prakash, Advocates for R-4 and 5 in W.P.(C) 4066/2026. Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari CGSC and Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. for UOI in WP(C) 4612/2025. Mr. Arun Aggarwal with Mr. Lovelesh Kukreja, Advs for R-4 in WP(C) 4612/2025. Mr. Shlok Chandra Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Naincy Jain Jr Standing Counsel, Ms. Madhavi Shukla Jr Standing Counsel,Mr. Udit Dad, Adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7348/2023. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP CBI in in W.P.(C) 7348/2023. Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advocates for UOI in W.P.(C) 16550/2023. Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Mr. Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Mr. Adarsh Raj Singh, Mr. Sumit Chanchal, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms. Saumya, Mr. Nitin & Ms. Nisha Advocates for Respondent/ Bank in W.P.(C) 16550/2023. Counsel (appearance not given) in W.P.(C) 14518/2024. Mr. Vipul Agrawal (Sr. Standing Counsel), Ms. Sakshi Shairwal (Jr. Standing Counsel), Mr. Gaoraang Ranjan, Adv., Ms. Harshita Kotru, Advocates for Revenue in WP(C) - 10895/2023. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Anand, Advocate for impleader in WP(C) - 10895/2023. JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) INDEX A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 17 B. THE LAW OF LOCS 18 C. ANALYSIS 35 I. LOCS ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/BANKS 35 (i) W.P.(C) 7348/2023 35 (ii) W.P.(C) 16550/2023 36 (iii) W.P.(C) 7484/2023 37 (iv) W.P.(C) 8252/2024 38 (v) W.P.(C)549/2025 38 (vi) W.P.(C) 1304/2025 39 (vii) W.P.(C) 7503/2024 41 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ately 110 orders where permission to travel abroad has been granted. Naturally, for the said orders, consequent orders/directions have also been passed by the concerned Registrar. In none of these cases have the petitioners absconded or fled from the country. Neither has any attempt to do so been alleged, nor does any such material find place on record. 3. These writ petitions have been categorised into three broad classes for the purposes of discussion, analysis, and disposal, namely: Category A - cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued solely at the instance of financial institutions; Category B - cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued at the instance of ministries and investigating agencies; and Category C - cases where petitioner is relegated to the forum that issued LOC. Each category raises distinct, though interrelated, legal issues which shall be addressed in the appropriate sequence in this judgment. 4. Comprehensive survey of the constitutional and statutory foundations governing the right to travel, the historical and regulatory evolution of the LOC regime in India, the relevant Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs ('MHA'), a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, the values it articulates are of the inviolability of the freedom to travel as an attribute of personal liberty, and are universally shared and have resonance in the Indian constitutional framework. 9. The Constitutional framework, therefore, affirms that the right to travel abroad is not a mere statutory entitlement but a fundamental constitutional right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on this right must satisfy the triple test enunciated in Maneka Gandhi: (i) it must be founded on a law duly enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) the procedure prescribed by such law must be just, fair, and reasonable; and (iii) the law and the procedure must not violate any of the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Executive action, even if authorised by administrative instructions, cannot be a substitute for legislative mandate when it comes to the possible curtailment of fundamental rights. 10. The concept of a Look Out Circular is not a creature of statute. It has its origins in executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The earliest instructions in this regard emanated from a letter issued by the MHA dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the judicial guidance provided by Sumer Singh Salkan, the MHA issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, which confined the issuance of LOCs to cases involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal statutes. Non-cognizable matters were restricted to intimation of travel movements only, and the person could not be detained or prevented from leaving. The 2010 OM also specified the category of persons/authorities who could make requests for opening an LOC, including Chairman, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of public sector banks, a provision which has subsequently been subjected to severe constitutional challenge, as detailed later in this judgment. 15. The MHA revisited and further refined the LOC regime through the Office Memorandum dated 05.12.2017, which introduced a new category of exceptional cases, authorising the issuance of LOCs even in matters not involving cognizable offences, where the departure of a person was considered prejudicial to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, its bilateral relations, strategic or economic interests, or the larger public interest. Further modifications were effected by the Office M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bombay High Court, as discussed in the following section. 18. In Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration, [2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229] the Madras High Court held that an LOC is a coercive executive measure which directly impinges upon personal liberty and, therefore, cannot be issued in a mechanical or routine manner. It was observed that under the governing guidelines, an LOC can be resorted only when there exists tangible material indicating deliberate evasion of arrest or a real likelihood of the individual fleeing the country. The Court emphasised that the mere existence of a criminal case or investigation is not sufficient to justify the issuance of an LOC, there must be specific, credible material to demonstrate a real and proximate threat of absconding. 19. The most consequential judicial pronouncement for the purposes of the present batch of petitions is the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195] decided on 23.04.2024. The lead matter arose from a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the 2010 OM and the 2021 OM that enabled the Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oan default or declaration as wilful defaulters, in the absence of any criminal proceedings, is unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised that the expression "detrimental to the economic interests of India" under the MHA guidelines is meant for exceptional cases involving grave, systemic, or national economic impact, and not routine commercial defaults. Since no FIR, charge-sheet, or cognizable offence was pending against the petitioner therein, and the disputes were purely civil and pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT'), the Court quashed the LOC as arbitrary and disproportionate. 24. The judgment in Sahil Chugh was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Bank of Baroda v. Sahil Chugh. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 9282] The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the single judge's conclusion. The Division Bench held that: (i) the mere inability to repay a debt, without there being a criminal case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21; (ii) the term "detrimental to economic interest" requires a finding of grave and systemic impact on the national economy, not routine commercial default; (iii) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. v. Union of India &Ors., [2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170] this Court 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 the denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive measures such as an LOC. This principle has direct bearing in cases where LOCs have been issued against persons based merely on their status as directors, guarantors, or family members of borrowers. 29. The jurisprudence in this area has been further consolidated and synthesised by a series of decisions of this Court. In Puja Chadha v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2025:DHC:8787] this Court, relying on Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration, [2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643] Dhruv Tewari v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2022 SCC OnLine Del 1893] Sumer Singh Salkan; Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of India, [2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587] and Anastasiia Pivtsaeva, held that the power to issue an LOC is an exceptional and coercive measure which has a direct bearing on an individual's fundamental right to travel, and therefore must be exerc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the company being investigated, without any specific role being attributed to him. 31. Most recently, this Court in Anant Raj Kannoria v. Union of India & Anr., [W.P.(C) 3313/2023 decided on 09.01.2026] Maria Ramesh v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) 15701/2022 decided on 27.01.2026] and Ritwick Dutta v. Union of India &Ors., [W.P.(C) 12862/2023 decided on 02.02.2026] has examined various aspects of the legal framework governing the issuance of LOCs. In Anant Raj Kannoria, this Court held as under: "23. In such circumstances, the continued restraint imposed upon the petitioner by way of the LOC operates as an unwarranted restriction on his personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution without any contemporaneous justification. The mechanical continuation of the LOC, despite the absence of necessity of the petitioner for investigation at this stage, renders the restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly when the petitioner has neither evaded the process of law nor shown any inclination to obstruct the investigation." 32. In Vineet Gupta &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors., [2026:DHC:1616] this Court synthesised the entire arc of judicial ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss 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. 33. On a conspectus of constitutional provisions, the regulatory framework, and the entire body of judicial opinion surveyed above, this Court distils the following governing legal principles for the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pply its mind independently and cannot act as a mere instrument of the originating agency. There must be a speaking order, based on specific and credible inputs, justifying the necessity of the restraint. A mechanical or pro forma compliance with the originating authority's request cannot satisfy this requirement. Seventh, an LOC cannot be issued against a person merely on account of his status as a director, guarantor, shareholder, or family member of a defaulting borrower, in the absence of specific material demonstrating his direct and personal role in the alleged wrongdoing. Guilt is personal and not vicarious in civil or criminal liability. 38. Eighth, the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite. It must be periodically reviewed and must be withdrawn when its purpose has been served. Where the subject has cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded process, and where no further interrogation or presence is required, the continued operation of an LOC amounts to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty. Ninth, while the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is duty-bound to subject LOCs to strict judicial scrutiny, the Writ Court is not th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seeking its quashing on the ground that the same has been issued without any application of mind, thereby infringing the petitioner's right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner first came to know of the impugned LOC on 23.11.2023, when he was stopped at the Indira Gandhi International Airport and denied permission to board his flight to Dubai, where he was scheduled to meet his investor. 43. The petitioner is the Promoter and Director of Respondent No. 3, to which Respondent No. 2 and SBI had extended credit facilities in 2011, which were declared NPA on 30.09.2016. Despite the petitioner paying Rs. 11 crores and submitting multiple settlement proposals, including a lump sum of Rs. 50 crores during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') and Rs. 57.30 crores during the liquidation proceedings along with an EMD of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,55,90,000/-, none were accepted. The National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') vide order dated 01.12.2023 directed the concerned liquidator to convene meetings of the shareholders and creditors in the Scheme of Compromise filed by the petitioner under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of OA 242/2015 before the DRT, Ahmedabad, and SARFAESI proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner. The impugned LOC appears to have been issued in the year 2022, and the petitioner first came to know of the same on 14.06.2022 when he was stopped at the airport. It is pertinent to note that there is no criminal investigation pending against the petitioner, no FIR has been registered, and no aspersion of non-cooperation has been raised against him. The LOC has been issued solely at the instance of the BOB in the absence of any underlying cognizable offence 50. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 had granted permission to the petitioner to travel to the United Kingdom from 23.01.2025 to 20.02.2025 to attend the graduation ceremony of his son. The petitioner duly complied with the said order and returned to India within the stipulated period without flouting any condition imposed by this Court, thereby demonstrating his bonafides. (vi) W.P.(C) 1304/2025 51. The present petition relates solely to the LOC issued at the instance of BOB, opened on 01.10.2019. The petitioner was engaged with M/s Kwality Limited, first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong Kong from India. 57. It is the case of the petitioner that no cause of action for the issuance of the LOC arose within India, and if any cause of action existed, it subsists solely in Hong Kong. It is pertinent to note that no criminal case or investigation is pending against the petitioner in India, and the LOC has been issued solely at the instance of Union Bank of India in the absence of any underlying cognizable offence. (viii) W.P.(C) 4612/2025 58. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the LOC issued at the instance of BOB, which appears to have been opened prior to 2022. 59. The petitioner is a guarantor to the loan facility availed by M/s Mahesh Timber Private Limited from BOB, whose credit facilities were declared NPA in 2016 with outstanding dues exceeding Rs. 50 crores. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is neither a Director nor a shareholder of M/s Mahesh Timber Private Limited, and is not a beneficiary of the loan facility availed by the said company. A recovery application filed at the instance of BOB is also pending adjudication before the DRT, Chandigarh. 60. The CBI has filed a chargesheet in the matter; howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circulates the LOC, is also in Delhi. Thus, it is not a case where, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 66. Second, the setting aside of an LOC is a fact-specific exercise and depends upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case. The stay of the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in other matters would not operate as a bar to this Court examining the validity of the impugned LOC on its own merits. It is settled law that a stay of a judgment operates only inter parties and does not have the effect of nullifying the legal principle laid down therein for all purposes. The impugned LOC must therefore stand or fall on its own merits. 67. Third, legislative debates, including those in the Rajya Sabha, are at best a tool of external aid in the interpretation of a statute and cannot substitute a formal executive or legislative order. Unless there is a formal order or notification issued by the Government, or a statute passed by the legislature, which further has withstood judicial scrutiny, parliamentary debates cannot be used to shield an order, which otherwise deserves to be quashed. (ix) W.P.(C) 4310/2026 AND....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id discharge orders are pending before this Court, the CBI has not independently opened any LOC against the petitioner. As of date, no criminal investigation is pending against the petitioner at the instance of any Investigating Agency, and the LOC earlier issued by one such agency stands cancelled by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 4/Central Bank of India that no LOC has been issued at their instance. 74. Since the issuance of the impugned LOC, the petitioner has been allowed to travel abroad on 12 occasions by this Court, by orders passed in W.P.(C) 8608/2020 i.e., the earlier writ petition filed by him, [Which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide the liberty granted by the Court in its order dated 14.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 8608/2020] and has duly returned on each and every occasion, without flouting any condition imposed by this Court. The details whereof are as under: S. No. Order Date Destination Purpose 1. 24.12.2020 USA Medical Treatment of Husband 2. 22.07.2021 USA Medical Treatment of Husband 3. 10.12.2021 USA Personal Medical Treatment 4. 01.06.2022 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and France Not Specified 4. 05.04.2023 USA Business Meetings and Meet Daughter 5. 25.08.2023 Spain and Italy Business Meetings 6. 03.04.2024 South Korea, Japan and UAE Business Meetings 7. 16.05.2024 France, Switzerland and England Business Meetings 8. 29.10.2024 Japan, Oman and Thailand Business Meetings 9. 22.09.2025 Spain Business Meetings (xi) W.P.(C) 1196/2026 80. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the LOCs issued at the instance of Indian Bank and BOB. The petitioner is the former Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Neosis Industries Limited, which had availed banking facilities from a consortium of lenders led by Punjab National Bank, including Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 81. The Banks have submitted that the account of the company has been declared fraud and that a huge amount remains to be recovered from the petitioner. However, it is submitted by the petitioner that these aspects, even assuming to be correct, cannot be the sole basis for opening or continuing the LOCs against the petitioner. It is further noted that the Respondent Banks have not placed on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir bonafides beyond doubt. 86. The LOCs are accordingly quashed and set aside in, subject to the following conditions:- a. Each petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad without any prior permission from this Court. The petitioner shall, however, intimate the concerned Bank, with their full itinerary either personally or through counsel, at least 48 hours prior to his/her departure; b. If, for any reason, it is not possible to furnish the said intimation within 48 hours, the same shall be furnished immediately when the travel plan is finalised; and c. If on account of a change in law, including a declaration by a Court, affirming the competence/jurisdiction of financial institutions to seek the issuance LOCs, the institutions shall be at liberty to seek the issuance of LOCs in accordance with law. 87. The concerned Banks are directed to inform the Bureau of Immigration regarding, inter alia, the quashing of the LOCs against the respective petitioners, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the petitioners are not impeded from travelling abroad. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to send such communication to the Immigration Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with 628 and 454 of the Companies Act, 1956, wherein the role and allegations attributed against each of the petitioners have been elaborately dealt with. Cognizance on the said complaint has, however, not yet been taken, and the matter is listed for consideration on 21.05.2026. 95. It is pertinent to note that each of the petitioners has rendered fullest cooperation to the SFIO in completion of the investigation, and no aspersion of non-cooperation has been raised against any of them. The petitioners have further undertaken before this Court that they shall fully cooperate with the complaint proceedings and appear before the concerned Court as and when cognizance is taken. 96. During the pendency of the present petitions, all five petitioners were permitted to travel abroad on multiple occasions by interim orders of this Court and have reported back on each occasion, complying strictly with the conditions imposed, without any violation whatsoever. (xiii) W.P.(C) 10895/2023 97. The present petition has been filed by the Chairman & Managing Director of Hotel Queen Road Private Limited, seeking quashment of the LOC dated 13.07.2022, issued at the instance of the Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he investigation. The CBI has since completed its investigation and filed a charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 105. Since the appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the Bank is the DRT, the continuance of the LOC issued at the instance of SBI is not warranted. Insofar as the LOC issued at the instance of CBI is concerned, the petitioner has not been called upon by the investigating agency for a period of more than two years and the LOC, having served its purpose, has lost its utility. (xv)W.P.(C) 950/2025 AND W.P.(C) 16610/2024 106. The present petitions have been filed by Sh. Anil Bhalla (W.P.(C) 16610/2024), and his son Sh. Gautam Bhalla (W.P.(C) 950/2025), both erstwhile Directors of Vatika Limited, challenging the LOCs issued against them at the instance of the Enforcement Directorate ('ED') in connection with ECIR/GNZO/16/2021 registered under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') on the basis of FIRs of Economic Offences of Wing ('EOW'). The LOCs earlier issued against both petitioners by the EOW in April 2022 were revoked in August 2022. Both petitioners seem to have fully cooperated with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....summons or notices have been issued to the petitioners. (xvii) W.P.(C) 4065/2025 112. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the LOC issued at the instance of the Income Tax Department. 113. The petitioner is a director of several tax-paying companies and is a resident of the USA. Search and seizure operations were conducted by the Income Tax Department on 27-28.11.2024 at the residence of the petitioner, offices of companies where the petitioner is a director, and the residences of his father, brother and in-laws, while the petitioner was in the USA attending to medical exigencies. The petitioner, thereafter, returned to India, underwent surgery for a malignant tumour on 17-18.02.2025, and upon recovery, duly joined the investigation in person on 25.02.2025 and subsequently submitted replies to queries raised during the in-person hearing vide emails dated 12.03.2025, 17.03.2025 and 20.03.2025. 114. It is pertinent to note that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner and no cognizable offence has been made out. The investigation qua the income of the petitioner stands concluded and assessment proceedings are presently pending....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued at the instance of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ('MCA'). Both the petitioners were Directors of M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. On 25.03.2021, a Company Petition bearing (IB) No. 197/PB/2021 was filed before the NCLT, New Delhi on behalf of the company under Section 10 of IBC, 2016, seeking initiation of the CIRP. 122. Vide order dated 06.06.2022, the NCLT rejected the said Company Petition and directed the Central Government to conduct necessary investigation into the affairs of the Company. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 15.06.2022, the Central Government ordered an investigation by the Regional Director, MCA into the affairs of M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. 123. Both the petitioners appeared before the concerned officer of the MCA on 08.08.2023 and 29.02.2024 and submitted Representations dated 18.12.2023 and 21.03.2025 to the MCA requesting suspension/revocation of the LOCs issued against them, as they have frequent personal and professional obligations requiring travel abroad. 124. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14518/2024 was permitted to travel abroad on 6 occasions and has completed all previous journeys ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Immigration regarding, inter alia, the quashing of the LOCs against the respective petitioners, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the petitioners are not impeded from travelling abroad. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to send such communication to the Immigration Department independently. 130. With the aforesaid directions, the aforesaid petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 131. While the aforesaid common conditions shall apply to all abovementioned petitions, it is further directed that in certain petitions, the following additional conditions shall apply over and above the common conditions set out hereinabove. W.P.(C) 10895/2023 AND W.P.(C) 8859/2025 132. The petitioners shall disclose on affidavit, the list of all moveable and immoveable assets in India (including those jointly owned by the petitioner along with his family members). 133. The petitioners shall furnish a full itinerary to the Investigating Agency seven days before undertaking any journey abroad, and if not possible, at least 48 hours before undertaking the same; 134. The petitioners shall not create any third-party rights whatsoever without prior intimation to the Inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordered the issuance of the LOC, for appropriate relief. This mode of disposal deserves separate and careful analytical treatment, as it reflects a nuanced judicial recognition of the constitutional balance between the writ court's plenary jurisdiction and the institutional primacy of the originating forum in the first instance. Sumer Singh Salkan is the bedrock authority for this category, which laid down comprehensive guidelines for the LOC regime. It specifically held as under: "11A... Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the matter is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence before the Ld. Special Judge (CBI), Rouse Avenue Courts; b. SFIO Complaint CC No. 770/2019, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 159, currently pending at the stage of Section 207/208 CrPC before the Ld. Special Court (Companies Act), Dwarka; and c. ED ECIR/DLZO-II/06/2019, in which properties worth Rs. 61.38 crores have been provisionally attached vide PAO No. 13/2021 dated 08.11.2021, which has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2022 in W.P.(Crl.) 11250/2022; 148. As regards the petitioner in W.P.(C) 17646/2022, she has been arrayed as Accused No. 210 in the SFIO Complaint CC No. 770/2019 and is also named in the ED ECIR/DLZO-II/06/2019, solely on account of being the wife of the principal accused. 149. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 17647/2022 has been granted bail in the CBI matter vide order dated 27.09.2014, with bail conditions subsequently modified vide order dated 27.01.2016 by the Ld. CBI Court, requiring only 3 days prior intimation to the court before travelling abroad along with furnishing of a complete itinerary and an FDR of Rs. 5 lakhs. The same travel c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in this category is that, in each of the four petitions before the Court in this category, a chargesheet has been filed by the CBI or other investigating agency before a Court of competent jurisdiction, and the matters are pending adjudication before the respective trial courts. 156. In such circumstances, the settled legal position as laid down in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) makes it clear that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is not to approach the writ court for quashing of the LOC, but to approach the trial court before which the chargesheet is pending, which has full jurisdiction to modify or cancel the LOC upon an appropriate application. The Trial Court is already seized of the matter and is best equipped to assess the necessity and proportionality of the LOC with the benefit of the complete investigative record. 157. It is further noted that in W.P.(C) 17647/2022, the petitioner has already been granted modified bail conditions by the Ld. CBI Court permitting him to travel abroad upon 3 days prior intimation, and has in fact travelled abroad on 15-20 occasions during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. In such circumstances, it is the tri....