Sananda Sahu vs Indian Overseas Bank, BBSR And Another

Arindam Sinha, J

1.Ms.  Mahapatra,  learned advocate appears  on  behalf  of petitioner and submits, her client has a term deposit account, already matured, with opposite party-bank. The bank did not allow her client to withdraw the proceeds. From counter filed on behalf of the bank her client came to know that the bank had received, communication dated 29th June, 2013 from office of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur Division requiring freezing of the account. The bank by its communication dated 6th December, 2019 informed the Enforcement Directorate that petitioner, along with one named accused in the investigation, had made the term deposit, matured on 7th August, 2015.

She submits, her client obtained and has disclosed provisional attachment order dated 30th March, 2019 issued by the Directorate. She refers to Table-B in schedule annexed (Moveable Properties:-FDs and TDs) to submit, the term deposit of her client is not mentioned therein. She submits, there be direction upon the bank to enquire on present position of the Directorate on the request for freezing her client’s term deposit, in light of same not having been made subject of the provisional attachment order. She submits further, the authorities also be directed to act expeditiously.

Mr. Rao, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite parties (bank). He submits, his client has been complying with the requirements made by the Vigilance Department.

The bank is directed to communicate this order to office of the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur and seek response regarding its request made by letter dated 29th June, 2013. The office is expected to respond on whether the request for freezing is to be maintained or the same stand discharged. In event said request is required to be maintained, the bank will forthwith inform petitioner, otherwise allow dealing with the term deposit.

The writ petition is disposed of.

…………………………