$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18897/2025 & CM APPL. 78682/2025 UTTAM RICE TRADERS THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR UTTAM JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paras Gupta, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr.ShashankManish,Adv.forHDFC CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 11.02.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“a). Pass an interim relief of directing respondent no.4 for making active the OD bank account with A/ C no. 50200081889483 and savings bank of the sole proprietor bearing A/C no. 50100651186173 since no disputed amount has been credited in any of these two accounts.

b). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondent no. 3 & 4 to defreeze the current account with account number 50200074238892, and make active the Over Draft (OD) bank account with account no. 50200081889483 and personal savings bank account with account number

5100651186173 in the interest of justice and equity…”

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firmmaintainingthreeaccounts withthe respondent No. 4, namely HDFC Bank. The petitioner is maintaining a current account bearing no. 50200074238892, an overdraft account bearing no. 50200081889483 and a personal savings account bearing no. 50100651186173 in the name of sole proprietor of the firm, i.e. Mr.

Uttam Jain.

3. On 16.09.2025, the petitioner received a payment of Rs. 24,980/-

against invoice No, URT/2025/2943 for a sum of Rs. 21,600/- dated 07.08.2025 and against invoice No. URT/2025/3680 amounting to Rs. 20,852/- dated 10.09.2025 from Shiv Nath Atta Chakki (Ekta Mkt) in its Current Account. The pending amount of Rs. 17,472/- was adjusted vide credit note bearing No. CN/144 dated 15.09.2025.

4. The petitioner came to know on 20.10.2025, that all his three accounts with the aforementioned description were frozen. On making an enquiry with the bank about the freezing of the account, the petitioner came to knowthat thesame were frozen on account of request received from Cyberabad Cyber Crime Police Station, Telangana to freeze the accounts regarding a disputed amount of Rs. 680/-, which was transferred in the current account of the petitioner from Shiv Nath Atta Chakki vide transaction dated 16.09.2025. The petitioner tried contacting the bank authorities for defreezing of his bank accounts but to no avail. Hence, the present petition is filed.

5. In the present case, the petitioner is a sole proprietorship engaged in business of selling and distributing rice. The petitioner has annexed the concerned invoices in question along with payment and credit note. The disputed amount, if any, is only to the extent of Rs. 680/- and the total amount of more than Rs. 1 crore have been frozen by respondent No. 4 bank.

6. TherespondentNo.1isstatedtohavefiledanaffidavit,whichisnoton record. The respondent No. 4 bank has not filed any counter affidavit. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been served, but there is nobody appearing on their behalf today.

7. In the present case, all the three accounts of the petitioner have been frozen for an allegedly disputed entry of Rs. 680/- .

8. It is pertinent to notethatbefore freezing the account,the petitioner has not been given any shown cause notice by the respondent No. 4 bank, seeking explanation from the petitioner. Additionally, no cogent reasons for freezing the account of the petitioner have been informed.

9. The freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for commercial entities in their smooth functioning and the same might result in commercial debt to the petitioner. The respondentNo.4bankcannotbepermittedtotakesuchharsh measures without complying with the principles of natural justice and without any application of mind.

10. Additionally, a coordinate bench of this Court has made categori