$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7726/2024 and CM APPL. 32085/2024, CM APPL.

52433/2025 VINEET GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Ms. Shruti Swaika and Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Advs.

versus BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. O.P. Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Seemant K. Garg and Mr. Nitin Pal, Advs. for R-2 to 12.

Dr. B. Ramaswamy, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner in the instant petition seeks the following reliefs:

“a. direct the Respondent No. 1 and/or the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to disclose and place on record before this Hon'ble Court the following details, as on the date of the filing of the instant Petition and also provide to the petitioner: 1. Date of issuance of LoC, issued against the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 11. Details/reasons of the issuance ofLOC, including restrictions placed on the travel of the petitioner abroad. iii. to quash the said LOC issued by the respondent No. 1 and all consequential actions taken by the respondents pursuant to the issuance of LoC; b. pass any and such and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

3. The case of the petitioner is that a company by the name of Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited (Company) had availed capital credit facility amounting to a sum of around Rs. 3500 Crore from a consortium of public sector banks led by respondent no. 2-bank. He executed a personal guarantee dated 26.08.2022 towards repayment of the same in the event of its default.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2-bank, at whose behest the Look Out Circular was opened, the stand taken is that a vast sum of public money remains outstanding against the Company and since the petitioner is one of the guarantors as well as the legal heir of the deceased Managing Director thereof, a request was made for opening of a Look Out Circular as a matter of abundant caution. It is stated that therefore, the departure of the petitioner from the country is detrimental to the economic interests of India and to the larger public interest.

5. However, the aspect of the petitioner’s being a personal guarantor is disputed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the minutes of the Consortium meeting dated 11.08.2021 states that the petitioner’s personal guarantee has been released by the respondents themselves. Letter dated 29.12.2021 has also been brought to the notice to state that the credit facility to the Company notes that the personal guarantee of the petitioner stood released. However, for the sake of argument, the Court has assumed that the petitioner is a guarantor, without prejudice to his contentions.

6. During the course of hearing, it transpires that till date, no F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also not been called upon by any investigating/enforcement agency for investigation. It is also seen that the respondent-banks have already initiated proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the same are stated to be pending at present.

7. The power to open Look Out Circulars at the instance of Chairmen/Managing Directors/Chief Executives of Public Sector Banks can be traced to the Clause 6(B)(xv) of the Consolidated guidleines for issuanmce of ‘Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners-reg’ contained in Office Memorandum No. 25016/10/2017 dated

22.02.2021 (Guidelines of 2021) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

8. Under Clause (I) of the Guidelines, where the subject is not accused of any cognizable offence under the penal laws, he/she cannot be prevented from leaving the country and the ‘originating agency’, which is respondent no. 2-bank in the instant case,