Petitioner challenged a Look Out Circular issued at State Bank of India's request after she stood guarantor for PC Jewellers' credit facilities. The bank confirmed an OTS was reached and the insolvency petition withdrawn; the Bureau of Immigration stated the LOC had already been cancelled. The Court disposed of the petition as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~112
versus
Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Standing Counsel with Mr. Akshit Kapur and Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates for SBI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 15.10.2024
CM APPL. 60376/2024 (on behalf of Petitioner seeking early hearing)
W.P.(C) 8516/2024
1 “LOC”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 02:11:58
issued by Bureau of Immigration/Respondent No. 1 at the request of State Bank of India/ Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner.
5.1. The Petitioner allegedly stood as a personal guarantor for the credit facilities availed by PC Jewellers Ltd.2 from Respondent No. 2.
5.2. PCJ availed various credit facilities from a consortium of 13 banks, including Respondent No. 2. However, due to default in repayment of dues by PCJ, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,3 were also initiated by Respondent No. 2 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi.4
5.3. During the pendency of the aforenoted proceedings, PCJ and Respondent No. 2 entered into an out of court One Time Settlement5 which was sanctioned by Respondent No. 2 through letter dated 12th March, 2024. 5.4. At one of the meetings of PCJ, Petitioner was informed that despite the settlement between Respondent No. 2 and PCJ, an LOC has been issued against him by Respondent No. 1 at the request of Respondent No. 2 due to which the Petitioner is unable to travel abroad. Hence, the present petition.
2 “PCJ”
3 “the Code”
4 “NCLT”
5 “OTS”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 02:11:58
agreed upon by PCJ and Respondent No. 2, PCJ has settled its outstanding dues to Respondent No. 2 and, accordingly, the said Respondent has withdrawn the insolvency petition initiated under Section 7 of the Code which is evidenced from the order dated 30th April, 2024, passed by the NCLT. He also points out that the LOC issued against the Managing Director of PCJ, Mr. Balram Garg, has already been quashed by this Court through order dated 12th July, 2024, in W.P.(C) 6739/2024.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2024/ d.negi
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 02:11:58
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner should be quashed in view of the One Time Settlement between PCJ and SBI.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna Devi
Union of India
State Bank of India
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
