Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
Shameera K K – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank Represented By Its Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed to de-freeze bank account. (Para 1) |
| 2. bank's obligation to inform account holders. (Para 2) |
| 3. criticism of court order execution without notice. (Para 3) |
| 4. writ petition disposed; account operability granted. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.
1.The Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the 1st Respondent Bank to de-freeze the Bank account of the Petitioner, which the 1st Respondent effected at the requisition of the 2nd Respondent - Police Authority.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent Bank submitted that the Bank had received a requisition for freezing of the account of the Petitioner from the 2nd Respondent for Rs.3,34,000/- and that thereafter, the Bank received an Order from the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Jaipur, for the transfer of the said amount to the account of the de facto complainant, and the Bank transferred Rs.3,34,000/- as per the said Order.
3. The 1st Respondent Bank transferred the frozen amount of Rs.3,34,000/- from the account of the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid Order of the Magistrate's Court without informing the Petitioner. It appears that the Magistrate Court also passed an
Account holders have the right to be notified before their funds are transferred under court orders, ensuring protection of their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Un-freezing of account - Notice quashed - Unless and until there is a strong suspicion against the petitioners, police would not be justified in freezing account belonging to petitioners. For, such f....
The court established that timely notification to the jurisdictional magistrate regarding account seizures is essential to uphold the rights of account holders under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
Banks cannot transfer account funds on court orders without notice to holder; lien limits and SOP compliance required.
The court affirms that banks can freeze accounts suspiciously without notice for up to three months, as established in prior case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
