SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 858

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Axis Bank Ltd. – Petitioner 
Versus
Enforcement Directorate And Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C)/6740 OF 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P das,
For the Respondent: Sc, Ed,

The governing money laundering statute holds overriding effect, mandating that financial institutions transfer frozen funds to authorized federal agencies upon the confirmation of attachment orders, with official acknowledgments serving as sufficient proof of compliance for other investigative bodies to prevent legal prejudice.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 8(3), 8(4), 17(1A) and 71 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 91 - Freezing of accounts - Confirmatory order by Adjudicating Authority - Obligation to transfer funds - Overriding effect of special statute.

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Overriding effect of provisions - Provisions of a specialized statute prevail over conflicting instructions from disparate investigative entities regarding the disposal of assets, provided procedural safeguards are adhered to. (Para 10)

(C) Compliance and Indemnity - Parties complying with mandatory statutory directives are entitled to formal acknowledgments, which serve as valid evidence to negate potential prejudice arising from contemporaneous investigations by other authorities. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
A financial institution received conflicting directives from various local law enforcement agencies and a specialized federal bureau regarding the status of two accounts. After initial debit restrictions imposed by police, the federal bureau confirmed an attachment order under the governing money laundering legislation. The institution requested legal clarity to prevent potential liability arising from conflicting compliance obligations toward multiple investigative bodies.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that upon confirmation of the freezing order by the designated adjudicating body, the institution is legally mandated to transfer the assets to the federal agency. The governing statute confers an overriding effect that supersedes claims by other investigating authorities.

Issues: Whether a financial institution is legally obligated to comply with a demand from a specialized federal agency to transfer assets that are simultaneously subject to freezing instructions from multiple local investigative entities.

Ratio Decidendi: The governing legislation explicitly mandates the transfer of assets upon the confirmation of an attachment order, providing an overriding effect over other conflicting legal processes. The potential for legal prejudice is mitigated by the issuance of official receipts, which serve as formal proof of compliance for the benefit of other investigative agencies.

Result: Petition disposed of with directives for the institution to transfer funds upon formal receipt of acknowledgment.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning conflicting attachment orders and account freezing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. parties' contentions regarding inter-agency jurisdiction and compliance risk. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. P Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R K D Choudhury, learned Dy. S.G.I, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed the orders dated 03-10-2023 and 17-10-2023, issued by the Authorized Officer/Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Guwahati, Zonal Office, directing the petitioner to make a Demand Draft of the frozen amount in 2 (two) accounts maintained with petitioner Bank, in favour of the “Joint Director”, Enforcement Directorate, payable at Guwahati.

3. The petitioner bank was maintaining accounts of 2 (two) customers namely “Virtous Payment Solutions LLP”, and “Wonder Enterprises” at its Udyog Vihar Branch, Gurugram, Haryana, and Faridabad, Sector-21 C, Faridabad Branch, Faridabad, Haryana respectively.

It is further projected that the Cyber Crime Police Station, Kohima, Nagaland, had registered one FIR, vide Crime No.03/2021, dated 08-10-2021 for offence committed under Section 420/120B of IPC read with Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act. Offences punishable under , 120B , being scheduled offences under Paragraph-1 of Part A of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, an ECIR was registered, vide ECIR No.GWZO-11/09/2022, dated 12-04-2022, for investigation, under the provisions of the said Act of 2002. Similar proceedings came to be instituted by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad. Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C., came to be issued to the petitioner bank, whereby, the petitioner bank was asked to provide the details of bank Account No.922020031689839 of “Virtous Payment Solutions”, which was contended to be necessitated for investigation in connection with FIR No.37/2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Rachakonda, Hyderabad. The petitioner responded to the said notice and had submitted all the details of the bank account so highlighted.

It is further projected that the petitioner bank's branch at Udyog Vihar had also received notices on various dates from Pelhar Police Station, Maharashtra, whereby, the concerned police station had sought for information regarding various transactions done and for marking debit freeze in the account of “Virtous Payment Solutions” maintained with Udyog Vihar Branch. Such notices was also projected to have been received from Mahamandir Police Station, Rajasthan, and Cyber Crime Police Station, Bangalore, with regard to requiring information of various transactions made in the account of “Wonder Enterprises” and for marking ‘debit freeze’ in the said account maintained with the Sector-21C Faridabad Branch, of the petitioner bank.

It is further projected that during the pendency of the said queries, the Enforcement Directorate had investigated into the matter and on completion of investigation, the Assistant Director/Authorized Officer, Enforcement Director, Zone 1, Guwahati, had passed an order on 21-04-2023, directing the petitioner bank to freeze the bank account standing in the name of “Virtous Payment Solutions LLP” and also in the name of “Wonder Enterprises”, at the respective branches of the petitioner Bank.

It is projected that the Assistant Director/Authorized Officer had thereafter, filed an application before the “Adjudicating Authority” at New Delhi, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which was registered as O.A. No.870/2023.

The Adjudicating Authority on consideration of the matter vide order dated 26-09-2023, had confirmed the order of freezing dated 21-04-2023 passed by the Assistant Director/Authorized Officer, to freeze the account standing in the name of “Virtous Payment Solutions” and “Wonder Enterprises”, maintained with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top