Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
Sapna Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14855/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajul Shrivastav, Arnav Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Kushagra Kumar, Arun Aggarwal, Lovelesh Kukrelesh Kukreja, Anmol Gupta
A personal guarantor may be permitted to travel abroad despite a Look Out Circular if their interests are balanced by furnishing appropriate financial security and the petitioner provides a detailed itinerary and undertaking to return.
Headnote:The petitioner sought permission for international travel despite a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her in relation to personal guarantee provided for a loan account. The court analyzed established precedents regarding the right to travel and the balance of interests for recovery proceedings. The court addressed the issue of whether a LOC can be bypassed by a personal guarantor for international travel. The court observed that there is no criminal prosecution pending. Invoking the ratio laid down in Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration, the court reasoned that the right to travel may be balanced by securing the interests of the respondent bank through financial guarantees and strict itinerary compliance. The court allowed the application for overseas travel subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of 2.5 Crores and strict adherence to reporting conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of debt recovery and personal guarantee obligations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. request by guarantor for travel permission citing pending bank loc. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. conditions for permitting travel while protecting bank recovery interests. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
CM APPL. 80159/2025 (by P-1 seeking permission to travel abroad from 17.01.2026 to 31.01.2026)
1. The applicant, in the instant application prays for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Allow the present application and permit Petitioner No. 1/Applicant to travel internationally for the period of 17.01.2026 to 31.01.2026, irrespective of the LOC issued against her purportedly in relation to the Loan Account No.03830200001231; and
(ii) Direct the Respondents to not restrict Petitioner No. 1/ Applicant from travelling internationally for the period of 17.01.2026 to 31.01.2026; and
(iii) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
3. The facts of the case would indicate that one Jagran Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. availed a loan of Rs. 4.89 Crores from the Bank of Baroda i.e., respondent no.2 during the year 2012-13. The said loan was secured by way of pledging immovable properties Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner no.1, the owner of the charged property, further, stood as a personal guarantor.
4. The loan account was then declared a Non-Performing Asset on 24.07.2025. The bank thereafter initiated proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’), and on 09.01.2023, issued a public notice for the sale of the charged property. Recovery proceedings were further instituted against the petitioner no. 1/personal guarantor, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai which came to be registered as TA/1835/2016, and which is still pending.
5. It is an admitted position that there is no criminal prosecution pending against petitioner no.1. The husband of the petitioner namely, late Shri Sanjeev Mohan Gupta had further passed away on 08.08.2023 after a prolonged illness.
6. By way of the instant application, one of the petitioners namely, Ms. Sapna Gupta seeks permission to travel internationally for a period from 17.01.2026 to 31.01.2026. The permission is necessary in view of the LOC issued at the instance of the respondent-bank.
7. Earlier, when this application was called out for hearing, the bank was directed to take instructions.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank opposes the aforesaid application and he emphasises that if the Court were to allow the application, the interests of the respondent-bank ought to be sufficiently secured.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the enunciation of law laid down in the case of Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration and Anr. ,12023 SCC OnLine Del 5917. the Court finds that the petitioner can be allowed to travel as per the itinerary given in the application. Therefore, the instant application stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to travel as prayed, subject to the following terms and conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores, which shall be furnished to the Registrar General of this Court.
ii. The petitioner shall furnish the bank statements in respect of bank account/s held by the petitioner in any foreign country for the period since the date of the opening of the said bank account/s till date. The petitioner shall also not operate any foreign bank account/s while travelling to UAE, if any.
iii. The petitioner shall file a detailed affidavit disclosing her complete itinerary, including her stay at various locations abroad as well as telephone numbers and residential/ hotel addresses. She shall also file an undertaking that she shall strictly adhere to the itinerary mentioned in the a
