IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12631-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.01.2026 ASHOK KUMAR GOEL AND OTHERS ... PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, (arguing counsel)

Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Advocate (through V.C.), with Mr. Raghav Kakkar, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI.

Mr. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Look Out Circular(s) issued against the petitioners and further for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to travel abroad.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners happen to be the Directors of Gulf Petrochem FZC, UAE to whom Sharjah Branch of Bank of Baroda, respondent No.4 had extended credit facility between the period 2011-

₹

2019 out of which, amount of approximately 130 crores still remains outstanding. The petitioners being the Directors, extended personal guarantee in favour of the said Branch of the Bank to secure the credit facility. On 31.05.2021 respondent No.4 had declared loan account of the company as fraud, which is alleged to have been done without granting opportunity of being heard by the Bank. The said loan facilities were extended to a foreign company incorporated as per laws applicable under UAE and the Bank which provided finance/loan facility, was also registered as per laws applicable under UAE Laws wherein, the petitioners although Indian citizens, provided personal gurantee for the said loan facilities. The sole basis for issuance of the Look Out Circular by the Bank is default by the Company Gulf Petrochem FZC, UAE in repayment of loan taken in UAE and no material has been produced by the respondents to claim any element of criminal culpability on the parts of the petitioners, hence the petition.

3. Respective replies have been filed by respondent No.1, 2 and also by respondent No.3 and 4.

4. During course of proceedings on 19.12.2025 following order was passed:-

“CM No. 18886 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners seeking permission to go abroad. Learned counsel for respondents/Bank seeks and is granted time to file reply to CM No.

18886 of 2025.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14.12.2025, titled ‘Manan Goel v. Union of India and Others’, which pertains to one of the four Directors of the same company and the remaining three Directors, who are the petitioners herein, have approached this Court.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the facts involved in the case of Manan Goel v. Union of India and Others are identical to the facts of the present case concerning all three petitioners.

Let an affidavit be filed before the next of hearing by respondents no. 3 and 4, pointing out the distinguishing features between the case of Manan Goel’s (supra) and the present case, failing which, this Court may pass appropriate orders in terms of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court. List on 09.01.2026, to be shown in urgent list.”

5. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.01.2026 respondent No.3 and 4 were directed to point out distinguishing features between the case of ‘Manan Goel Vs. Union of India and Others’ wherein the petitioner was granted benefit by Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2025 and the case of the petitioners herein.

6. In compliance of the above order respondent No.3 and 4 had filed duly sworn affidvit dated 15.01.2026 of Mayank Kumar, Assistant General