$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14519/2024 Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJESH MONGA .....Petitioner Through: Mr C S Gupta and Nilay Gupta and Mr. Mukut, advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana Advs., UOI.

Mr. Amit Kasera, Adv. for R-2 (through v/c)

Mr. Arun Aggarwal with Mr. Lovelesh Kukreja and Ms. Kajal Ashok Mishra, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:

1. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in nature of a Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the Look Out Circulars’ opened against the petitioner by the Respondents; and

2. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the Look-Out-Circular’s opened against the petitioner on the request made by:

(a) Respondent No. 2 Bank – India Bank (earlier Allahabad bank now merged) against the petitioner;

(b) Respondent o. 3 Bank- Bank of Baroda against the petitioner.

3. Pass any further order or orders, direction or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

2. The petitioner is a Director and shareholder of Emmsons International Limited, an Indian incorporated company engaged in international business operations, including coal mining projects through its subsidiary Emmsons Gulf DMCC, Dubai. It appears that petitioner has executed certain loan documents and stood as guarantor in respect of credit facilities availed by the borrower Company from a consortium of banks led by respondent no. 3 – Bank of Baroda, with respondent no. 2 – Indian Bank (formerly Allahabad Bank).

3. The petitioner submits that respondent-Banks have requested respondent no. 4 – Bureau of Immigration, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, to open Look Out Circulars against him. However, the respondent- Banks have neither provided any written communication nor disclosed the details, reasons, or copies of the LOCs. The facts of the case would indicate that there is no criminal investigation pending against the petitioner, neither any FIR nor any charge-sheet has been filed till date. However, various cases seem to be pending before different forums of recovery.

4. It appears in the instant case that the LOC has been opened at the instance of the Indian Bank.

5. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent who appears for the Bank of Baroda submits that at his instance no LOC has been opened.

6. In view of aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the case of Vineet Gupta vs. Union of India, 2026:DHC:1616, wherein it has considered the power of the financial institutions as to whether at their instance, a LOC can be opened.

In paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment, this Court has held as under:

“28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:

(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda;

(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood of absconding;

(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where, the propo