The issuance of a Look-Out Circular against the petitioner was quashed due to insufficient grounds and a violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for Look Out Notice, if any, issued against the petitioner be quashed and to allow the petitioner to travel abroad.

2. The petitioner was one of the managerial personnel of one Company engaged in the business of the construction in India including its specialization in the infrastructure construction segment which includes buildings and highways. The State Bank of India had filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The Company was admitted in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 30th November, 2021. During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional has been in charge of the affairs of the Company. At the instance of the Resolution Professional, a Transaction Audit Report was prepared by a Forensic Auditor dated 30th July, 2022. The Auditor did not find any fraud in the transaction carried out by the Company through its Board of Directors.

3. Mr. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner submits that despite the Transaction Auditor appointed by the Resolution Professional already reported that there is no fraud in the business transactions by the Company through its erstwhile Board of Directors, the respondent no.1 has proceeded on the basis of an ex-parte Report in the form of an order prepared behind the back of the petitioner under Section 208 of the Companies Act, 2013, being Order No. 3/67/2109/CL-II(ER). He submits that there is no act of fraud committed by the company or the petitioner. There is no record of fraud against the petitioner or the Company or the Suspended Board.

4. Mr. Chaudhury submits that on 11th December, 2024, Anil Agarwal, an erstwhile Director of the Company tried to embark on a visit to Nepal, the Immigration Authority upon perusing passport and other identification documents stopped Anil Agarwal to travel to Nepal and informed that on the basis of the complaint of the respondent no.1, a Look-Out Circular is issued in the name of Anil Agarwal.

5. Mr. Chaudhury submits that the petitioner has received a summons dated 8th January, 2025, from the office of the respondent no.1 under Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the purpose of investigation into the affairs of the Company. He submits that the respondent no.1 invoked the provisions of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. On 11th March, 2025, the petitioner has received another summons from the respondent no. 1 under Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the purpose of investigation and accordingly the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation.

6. By an order dated 10th July, 2025, this Court directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to file report by way of an affidavit disclosing all the facts and figures. The Deputy Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, has filed affidavit. In the said affidavit, the SFIO has not disclosed any Look-Out Circular and subsequently the Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has placed a sealed cover envelope containing Look-Out Circular.

7. Mr. Chaudhury submits that as per the Look-Out Circular relied by the respondent nos.1 and 2, the same was issued as per the order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 19th July, 2022, being File No. 3/67/2019/CL-11(ER). He submits that from the said Look-Out Circular, it does not reveal that whether any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner or not.

8. Mr. Chaudhury has brought to the notice of this Court to Clause 4 of the Look-Out Circular with respect to relevant information and instructions wherein it is categorically mentioned that all LOCs (Other than those specifically mentioned in para 6(J) of the consolidated guidelines), which have completed one year, would automatically lapse after a year of opening unless reviewed and recommended for retention of the originator.

9. Mr. Chaudhury has relied up