Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 January, 2023

Ritu Singal vs Bureau Of Immigration & Ors on 17 April, 2026

In Anastasiia Pivtsaeva &Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.,13 this Court held that mere association or a familial relationship with an accused, absent any concrete material showing direct involvement or complicity in the alleged offence, cannot justify adverse action such as the denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive measures such as an LOC. This principle has direct bearing in cases where LOCs have been issued against persons based merely on their status as directors, guarantors, or family members of borrowers.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Vineet Gupta vs Bureau Of Immigration & Ors on 22 January, 2026

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 06/02/2026 at 20:35:30 of any cognizable offence under the penal laws and the only reason for the issue of a Look Out Circular against him is the fact that he is a personal guarantor in respect of the loan. Further, while the case of respondent no. 2- bank is that the promoters/directors of the Company have siphoned of the money, it is not their case that the petitioner has also taken part in the same. This Court in its decision in Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.8 has held that mere association or a familial relationship with an accused, absent any concrete material showing direct involvement or complicity in the alleged offence, cannot justify adverse action such as denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive measures. In Rajesh Kumar Mehta, this Court, when faced with a similar situation, has held as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Himanshu Luthra vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 March, 2026

15. While the dues against the Company is, of course, in respect of a large sum, regard has to be had to the fact that the petitioner has not been accused of any cognizable offence under the penal laws and the only reason for the issue of a Look Out Circular against him is the fact that he is a personal guarantor in respect of the loan. Further, while the case of respondent no. 2-bank is that the promoters/directors of the Company have siphoned of the money, it is not their case that the petitioner has also taken part in the same. This Court in its decision in Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.5 has held that mere association or a familial relationship with an accused, absent any concrete material showing direct involvement or complicity in the alleged offence, cannot justify adverse action such as denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive measures. In Rajesh Kumar Mehta, this Court, when faced with a similar situation, has held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1