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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
Febin Francis, S/O Francis Paul – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.K.ADHITHYAN, REUBEN CHARLY, SHAHINA NOUSHAD, CHRISTY THOMAS
For the Respondent: DSGI SRI C DINESH .SC SRI MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court directs freezing to be confined to the amount specified by police authorities, enabling transactions beyond that limit (!) . - Police authorities must inform the bank whether freezing will continue and, if so, for what period; banks must act on this information (!) (!) . - If no information is received within the specified time, the bank may lift the debit freeze and the petitioner may approach the court again (!) (!) . - The bank and petitioner must serve a copy of the judgment to the concerned police officer and retain proof of service to enable compliance (!) . - The police must inform whether seizure has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and within what time; failure to inform within two months can lead to lifting of the freeze by the bank (!) . - The judgment reiterates that indefinite delays in reporting by police are unjust and emphasizes timely communication to banks regarding seizures (!) .

What is the scope of bank account freezing that the court directs in relation to police requisitions?

What is the procedure and timeline for police reporting to banks regarding account seizures as required by the court?

What are the consequences if banks do not receive timely information from police or if police fail to report seizure to the Magistrate?


JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is filed to direct the 6th respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.917010051403733.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 6th respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from the respondents 4 and 5. The action of the 6th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent bank.

4. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent bank submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.3,58,290/-. The said submission is recorded.

5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:

“ a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top