Bombay High Court Tells Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra to Deposit ₹60 Crore for Lifting Lookout Circular

The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed actor Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, to either deposit ₹60 crore or provide a continuous bank guarantee from a nationalised bank in order to have the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against them withdrawn.

Why Shilpa and Raj Want to Travel Abroad

The couple, currently facing a cheating case filed by the Mumbai Police Economic Offences Wing (EOW), requested the suspension of the LOC so they could travel to London to visit Kundra’s ailing father.

According to a News18 report, their plea stated that Kundra’s father is suffering from a chronic and unexplained iron–ammonia deficiency, causing severe complications, blood loss, and increasing breathlessness. Doctors have advised him to undergo either a repeat capsule endoscopy or a double-balloon enteroscopy.

The couple sought urgent permission to travel before January 20, 2026, citing the rapid deterioration of his condition.

Court Says Full Amount Must Be Deposited

Representing the couple, Senior Advocate Abad Ponda argued that depositing the full amount was unreasonable and suggested providing surety or a viable alternative. He emphasized that the travel request was based solely on medical necessity.

However, the bench reportedly rejected the plea and held firm that the entire amount must be deposited for the LOC to be lifted.

Their Plea to Quash the Cheating Case

Last month, Shilpa and Raj moved the court seeking to quash the ₹60-crore cheating case and asked that the police be restrained from filing a chargesheet or taking coercive action against them.

The complaint, filed by businessman Deepak Kothari, alleges that between 2015 and 2023, the couple induced him to invest ₹60 crore in Best Deal TV Pvt Ltd, but used the money for personal gains.

In their petitions, the couple claimed that the FIR is based on false and distorted facts and has been filed with “malicious and ulterior motives” to extort money. They maintained that any losses incurred were business-related and not the result of fraud or criminal conspiracy.

Leave a Comment