AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 299 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client’s account has been frozen by the bank, purportedly acting on instruction received from Kanjurmarg Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra. He points out, by order dated 7th January, 2021, made by coordinate Bench, there was direction for issuance of notice. Furthermore, opposite party no.5 was added on amendment. He files consolidated cause title. Added opposite party no.5 is his client’s purchaser. Affairs of said opposite party is reason for the police to have issued the instruction.
Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the bank and submits, his client is a private bank. He relies on view taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by order dated 26th November, 2020 in Writ-C no.18999 of 2020 in Kailashi Devi v. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank available at 2020 SCC OnLine All 1415. He submits, the Division Bench relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733.
None appears on behalf of opposite party no.3, on whom service is presumed as there was due dispatch but AD card not received.
Contention on maintainability taken by the bank is reserved to it. In the circumstances, the writ petition will be heard on two points. Firstly, on maintainability and if necessary, on the law regarding the bank acting on instruction received from a police station in Maharashtra to deal with its constituent. Accordingly, there is no requirement to file counter. However, counter may be filed, on advance copy served.
Issue notice along with this order on added opposite party nos.4 and 5 by registered/speed post with AD. Petitioner will put in requisites.
List on 26th September, 2022.
………………………