Talibkhan, Mr. Hardik Sharma, Mr. Rohit Yadav and Ms. Vidhi Agarwal, Advocates v. BANK OF BARODA ORS

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12842/2025 & CM APPL. 52479/2025 ANIL KUMAR GIANCHAND GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Talibkhan, Mr. Hardik Sharma, Mr. Rohit Yadav and Ms. Vidhi Agarwal, Advocates. versus BANK OF BARODA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate for R-1/BOB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 08.10.2025 1. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief: “ A. Issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction especially in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ to quash the LOC/s, issued against the Petitioner at the behest of the Respondent No. 1 and 4 i.e. Bank of Baroda & Punjab National Bank, respectively.” 2. Vide order dated 25.08.2025, this Court had issued notice in the present matter. The notice was accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/ Bank of Baroda. 3. However, since the respondent no. 4/ PNB was not represented on the said date, notice was issued to the respondent no. 4/PNB. 4. The service report shows that respondent no. 4/PNB has been served. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 4/PNB. Even the counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondent no. 1/Bank of Baroda. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 13:07:52

5. Mr. Talibkhan , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the challenge in the present petition is to the lookout circular [in short ‘LOC], that has been issued against the petitioner at the instance of two banks namely respondent no. 1/Bank of Baroda and respondent no. 4/ PNB. 6. He submits that the petitioner is only a guarantor and not the principal borrower in the loan availed from the aforesaid banks nor he was part of the management of the borrower company. 7. He submits that the action has already been initiated by the respondent banks against the principal borrower company under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He further contends that the company has been liquidated vide order dated 19.02.2025. 8. Inviting attention of the Court to the judgement dated 15.04.2025 passed in WP (C) 4781/2024 titled as Vinay Mittal & Anr vs Bank of Baroda & Ors., he submits that the said petition was filed by two other guarantors assailing the same LOC which had been issued at the instance of respondent no.1/Bank of Baroda and respondent no.4/PNB. 9. He submits that vide the said judgement, this Court had quashed the said LOC on the ground that the banks do not have any authority to request for issuance of LOC in terms of memorandum dated 27.10.2010 which was superseded by another O.M. dated 22.02.2021. The relevant paragraph from the said judgement reads as follows: “7. Mr. Amit Tiwari, the learned CGSC appearing on behalf of Union of India (UOI) submits that he has instructions to state that LOCs in the present case have been issued at the instance of two banks, namely, PNB and BoB. On a query posed by the court, he states that in terms of the aforesaid OM dated 27.10.2010 (as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 13:07:52 amended) and OM dated 22.02.2021, the Bureau of Immigration (BoI) is only the custodian of the LOC and the modification/deletion of LOC can be done by the BoI in the eventoriginating agency makes a request to that effect or if the court so directs. 8. On further being queried, Mr. Tiwari submits that the BoI has not received any request from any investigating agency for issuance of LOC against the present petitioners. 9. The respondent no.5/PNB has not filed any counter affidavit.However, respondent no.4/Union Bank of India has filed a counter affidavit stating that it has not sent recommendation to competent authority to issue a look out circular against the petitioners. 10. The respondent no.1/Bank of Baroda in its counter affidavit has taken a stand that vide letter dated 29.07.2020, it had requested Bureau of Immigration for issuance of LOC against the directors/guarantors of the principal borrower, M/s Santosh Overseas Private Ltd./respondent no.6, in terms Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 bearing O.M. 23016/31/2010-Imm. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are only guarantors of the respondent no.6/borrower. 11. Having regard to the fact that – (i) Clause 8(b)(xv) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 bearing O.M. 23016/31/2010-Imm. [which is equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the O.M. 25016/10/2017-Imm.(Pt.) dated 22.02.2021] in terms of which LOC were recommended to be issued by the aforesaid banks, has already been quashed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah (supra); (ii) a Coordinate Bench of this court in Rajesh Kumar Mehta (supra) has also quashed the LOC relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court; (iii) there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner nor there is any request of any investigating agency for the issuance of LOC in question; (iv) the petitioners are only guarantors; and (v) the banks have already availed their remedies under SARFAESI Act, this court is inclined to allow the present writ petition.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 13:07:52

10. This Court finds that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts in Vinay Mittal (supra) since the petitioner herein is also a guarantor with the petitioners therein and thus, similarly situated. 11. Since this Court has already quashed LOC qua other two guarantors in Vinay Mittal (supra), this Court is of the view that the present petition also deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 13. Consequently, the impugned LOC issued against the petitioner at the behest of respondent no.1/Bank of Baroda and respondent no.4/PNB, is quashed and set aside. 14. The petition along with pending application is disposed of. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 8, 2025 ‘JK’