Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA
VVR Industries, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's account freeze and business operations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. notification of account freeze and related letters. (Para 4) |
| 3. responses and counterclaims regarding fraudulent transactions. (Para 5) |
| 4. evidence of alleged fraud and its consequences. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's decision allows petitioner's claim to proceed in trial court. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Heard Mr C.Shanmukha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Ms L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr M.P.Kashyap, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, Mr Thomas Joseph Lloyd, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 6.
2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking prayer as under:
“to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ, more particular in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in continuing to freeze Petitioner No.1’s account and directing the Respondent No. 3 Bank to de-freeze account No. 50200016545880 of 1st petitioner
The court emphasized that allegations of fraud must be substantiated in a Trial Court, preserving the procedural integrity while allowing the petitioners to seek relief through appropriate legal chan....
Bank to defreeze account retaining lien over disputed cyber fraud amount, permitting operations.
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
