Allowed¶12

Ashish Mittal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/2355/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ashish Mittal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors., W.P.(C) 2355/2024 (Delhi HC, 09.04.2026, Jasmeet Singh, J.): Look Out Circulars issued by respondent banks against a personal guarantor of a defaulted consortium loan quashed; LOC cannot be issued only for bank loan defaults or credit facility; Article 226; right to travel abroad; Saral Verma (W.P.(C) 6481/2019) and Shalini Khanna (W.P.(C) 10951/2022) relied on; CBI issued no LOC; DRT OA No. 461/2018 pending; future travel subject to ACJM-02-cum-ACJ prior permission.

What did the court decide?

Both Look Out Circulars (issued by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5) quashed; petitioner to obtain prior permission of the ACJM-02-cum-ACJ in terms of orders dated 20.03.2026 and 04.06.2025 before travelling; documents handed over in Court taken on record; petition disposed of with these directions.

Ashish Mittal Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the Look Out Circulars issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 on account of bank loan default / credit facility can be sustained, and whether the writ of certiorari quashing them should issue.

¶1

Court's answer

A Look Out Circular cannot be issued only for bank loan defaults or availing of credit facility.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The two LOCs, one issued by respondent No. 1 and the other by respondent No. 5, are quashed; the petitioner shall, before travelling, obtain prior permission in accordance with the orders dated 20.03.2026 and 04.06.2025 and any other order passed by the ACJM-02-cum-ACJ.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 and quashed two Look Out Circulars issued against the petitioner, Ashish Mittal, a guarantor for a consortium loan of about Rs. 395 crores sanctioned to M/s Santosh Overseas Limited (Liquidation), respondent No. 1 Bank of Baroda's exposure being Rs. 37.2 crores. The LOCs had been issued by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 in accordance with the Master Direction on Fraud and in furtherance of MHA Office Memorandum No. 25016/10/2017-Imm dated 12.10.2018. Relying on this Court's decisions in Saral Verma v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 6481/2019, order dated 20.08.2024) and Shalini Khanna v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 10951/2022, order dated 06.02.2024), the Court held that an LOC cannot be issued only for bank loan defaults or credit facility. CBI stated it had issued no LOC against the petitioner. Recovery proceedings (OA No. 461/2018, DRT) against borrowers and guarantors remain pending; the petitioner may travel abroad subject to prior permission of the ACJM-02-cum-ACJ in terms of orders dated 20.03.2026 and 04.06.2025.

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2355/2024 & CM APPL. 9752/2024, CM APPL. 9754/2024, CM APPL. 19398/2024, CM APPL. 29118/2024, CM APPL. 6627/2025

¶4

ASHISH MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Amit Dhall, Advs. versus BANK OF BARODA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Kushagra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 09.04.2026

¶5

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :-

¶6

“a) Issue· a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Look Out Circular ( which are still not provided to the Petitioner) issued against the Petitioner;…”

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 bank is one of the lenders in the consortium which sanctioned loan to M/s Santosh Overseas Limited (Liquidation) of about Rs. 395 crores.

¶8

The petitioner, amongst the others, acted as a guarantor to the sanctioned loan amount. The exposure of respondent No. 1 bank is to the tune of Rs. 37.2 crores.

¶9

The respondent banks have already filed OA No. 461/2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the borrowers and the guarantors including the petitioner. The same is pending adjudication.

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:33

¶12

The respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 5, in accordance with Master Direction on Fraud, have issued a LOCs (“Look Out Circulars”) against the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge.

¶13

Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to a series of judgments passed by this Court, one of them being order dated 20.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 6481/2019 titled Saral Verma v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein in paragraph No. 6, it has been held as under:

¶14

“6. As regards the Impugned LOC issued at the behest of Respondent Banks, in the opinion of the court the same cannot sustain. This court has in a similar connected matter W.P.(C) 9247/2019, quashed the LOC issued at the behest of Respondent Bank. Following a similar approach, it must be noted that, the Ministry of Home Affairs5 , which is the nodal ministry responsible for issuing guidelines for international travel, has noted that an LOC can be issued in cases of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code and other penal laws and only in exceptional circumstances, can its scope be expanded. Apart from the FIR referred to above, which is directed to be suspended until the charge sheet is filed, there are two other criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner. Pertinently, there is no LOC issued by the CBI with respect to these FIRs. Additionally, in FIR bearing no. RC4E/2020/CBI/SCB/LKO a charge sheet has been filed and the trial court has taken cognizance in the

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:33

¶17

said case. The Petitioner has in fact furnished bond under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978, which pertinently stands accepted without any conditions or restrictions on travel. As regards FIR bearing No. RC0062022A0004, no charge sheet has been filed in the said case. Furthermore, there is no material placed before the Court to demonstrate the Petitioner's criminal culpability that could suggest his intention to abscond. The fact that the Petitioner has travelled abroad and returned also minimizes the flight risk. Therefore, the merely because recoveries have to be effected cannot be a basis for opening an indefinite LOC against him. Such indefinite restrictions on the Petitioner's movement infringe upon his fundamental right to travel abroad, a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India., as observed in the landmark judgments of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6 and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer and Ors. ”

¶18

Further, the respondents have issued LOCs in furtherance of Office Memorandum No. 25016/10/2017-Imm dated 12.10.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

¶19

Similarly, in the judgment of Shalini Khanna v. Union of India being W.P.(C) 10951/2022 vide order dated 06.02.2024, this Court in paragraph No., 23 has held as under:

¶20

“23. The issuance of lookout circular cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan defaults or credit facilities availed for

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:33

¶23

business and the Fundamental Right of a citizen of the country to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan more so when the person against whom the lookout circular is opened has not been even arrayed as an accused in any offence for misappropriation or siphoning off the loan amounts.”

¶24

Mr. Kushagra, learned counsel for CBI states that CBI has not issued any LOC against the petitioner.

¶25

Relying on the said judgments, I am of the view that LOC cannot be issued only for bank loan defaults or credit facility and hence, the same needs to be quashed.

¶26

The ACJM-02-cum-ACJ has already issued directions to the petitioner not to leave the country without prior permission from the Court.

¶27

Consequently, the 2 LOCs, one issued by respondent No.1 and other issued by respondent No. 5, are quashed and the petitioner before travelling, shall obtain prior permission in accordance with the orders dated 20.03.2026 and 04.06.2025 and any other order passed by the ACJM-02-cum-ACJ.

¶28

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶29

The documents handed over in Court today are taken on record.

¶30

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶31

APRIL 9, 2026/sp

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 20/04/2026 at 12:02:33

Ashish Mittal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Mittal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical Educational Society Vs Union of India

Techniko Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr.

Bhagwan Dass Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Narendar Pal Sachdeva Vs DDA and Anr.

Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manju Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bhagwan Dass Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Amulya Gampa & Anr. Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Adarsh Ramleela Committee (Regd.) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shekhar Bahadur Vs Bank of Maharastra and Anr.

Khukhrain Builders Vs Indian Bank

M/S Ananta Vs the Reserve Bank of India & Ors.