Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20822-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28679 of 2024 Petitioner :- Proview Constructions Limited Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra,Anuj Kumar,Srijan Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Sushant,A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Dwivedi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

1. Petitioner before this Court is a Company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. One Rajeev Kumar Arora is its Authorized Signatory and Director. He (Rajeev Kumar Arora) has an ongoing matrimonial dispute with respondent no. 3, who claims herself to be his wife. A first information report is also lodged by third respondent, against Rajeev Kumar Arora, being Case Crime No. 476 of 2023, Police Station Link Road, Trans Hindon Commissionerate, Ghaziabad pursuant to a direction issued by the concerned Magistrate, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. On account of matrimonial dispute, third respondent made an application to the respondent No. 2 Kotak Mahindra Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) for freezing the current account of the petitioner company, maintained in its Ghaziabad Branch, till the pending matrimonial dispute is resolved. Respondent No. 3 admittedly has a share of 0.75% in the petitioner Company; whereas shareholding of Rajeev Kumar Arora is 41.15% in the Company.

3. The Bank has acted upon the representation of third respondent and has freezed petitioner’s bank account no. 3649007591, vide its order dated 28.5.2024. By this communication the petitioner has been advised by the Bank to get their internal dispute resolved. Reliance is placed upon the lodging of the FIR against Rajeev Kumar Arora as well as the request of third respondent for its action. Third respondent has also instituted other proceedings against Rajeev Kumar Arora including filing of a Original Suit before the Civil Court to restrain the bank from defreezing the Bank Account of the petitioner company. In this suit, however, no injunction has been granted and only notices are issued in the matter.

4. It is at this stage that the petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the respondent Bank to defreeze its bank account and to allow it to operate its Bank Account. Prayer is also made to quash the communication issued by the respondent Bank, contained in Annexure 1, dated 28.5.2024. This communication of the respondent Bank acknowledges that a sum of Rs. 10,57,00000/- is lying in the Current Account of the petitioner company but in view of the request made by third respondent as also the lodging of the FIR, the withdrawal of amount is not being processed.

5. At the outset, Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Advocate assisted by Sri Srijan Mehrotra appearing for the petitioner submits that there is neither any order passed by the competent court directing the respondent bank to freeze bank account of the petitioner company, nor there is any direction issued by the Investigating Officer of the criminal case, for freezing petitioner’s bank account. No action against petitioner Company is taken by any competent authority for such purposes, either. It is, therefore, submitted that unilateral act on part of the respondent bank in denying withdrawal of amount from the Current Account of the petitioner company is wholly arbitrary and is not referable to any provision of law. It is urged that the right of petitioner Company to run its business is infringed. The petitioner also asserts that holding its money in the bank account of respondent bank amounts to property, and its deprivation without an authority of law violates the constitutional rights of petitioner’s authorized signatory under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Sri Mehrotra also submits that essential functions of petitioner Company and its sister concerns are virtually crippled as the petitioner is not able to carry out its financial obligations including payment of salary to its employees