On Thursday, the Bombay High Court told Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband, the businessman Raj Kundra, that if they wanted the Lookout Circular (LOC) taken off, they would have to pay 60 crore rupees or give a nationalized bank an ongoing guarantee.
Why Silpa and Raj want to go to the UK
The couple asked for the Look Out Circular to be canceled so they could travel to London to see Kundra’s father, who is sick. They are currently in court because the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police accused them of stealing.
According to a News18 story, the plea said that he had been found with a chronic and unclear lack of iron and ammonia, which caused him to lose blood, develop serious problems, and have worsened shortness of breath. He has been told that he should have a repeat capsule endoscopy or double-balloon enteroscopy done again. The couple asked for approval to travel before January 20, 2026, saying it was a medical emergency. They also said Kundra’s father has been having trouble breathing and getting worse.
Read also:
- Legal action taken against actor Ranveer Singh
- Abhishek Bachchan breaks his silence on divorce
- Salman Khan Opens ₹10,000 Crore Integrated Township
The court asks the couple to pay the full amount.
According to the report, Senior Advocate Abad Ponda fought against paying the full amount and advised giving security or an acceptable replacement instead on behalf of Shetty and Kundra. He stressed that the trip was only for medical reasons.
But the bench apparently said no to the request and said that the full amount was required to lift the LOC.
Raj and Shilpa want to end the case.
The couple tried to get rid of the 60-crore-rupee stealing case last month. They also asked the court to tell the cops not to file a chargesheet or take any forceful actions before the hearing.
Deepak Kothari filed a charge against the couple, saying that they convinced him to spend 6 billion rupees in their company, Best Deal TV Pvt Ltd, from 2015 to 2023, but the money was used for their own personal gain.
The couple’s plea said that the FIR was based on lies and that it was “maliciously filed with an ulterior and malafide motive to extort money.” At the time, they claimed that the losses were just part of doing business and not the result of any kind of fraud or illegal plot.
