DIASPAY FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 28436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19261 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
DIASPAY FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.62/1, NEW NO.7, 1ST CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 032, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT-2013.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO/DIRECTOR, RAJESH TUBATI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O KOTESWARAO,RAVINDRA TAGORE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 032.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA, Digitally signed by B K REPRESENTED BY SHRI. VISHAL PADIR, MAHENDRAKUMAR POLICE INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATION OFFICER, CYBER Location: HI GH COURT OF POLICE STATION, SECTOR-5, KARNATAKA SAVLI BUILDING, NEAR D.Y PATIL HOSPITAL, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706, 2. THE AXIS BANK BRANCH MANAGER, KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK, PREMIUM BRANCH, NO. 21, 4TH BLOCK, 80 FEET RD, S.T. BED, CAUVERY COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 095.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH K.S, GA FOR R1;
SMT. SREEDEVI K.B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OD INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECT THE R2, TO MARK LIEN OF PETITIONER ESCROW ACCOUNT NO. 923020072741551 ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISPUTED AMOUNT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Petitioner Advocates:NANDEESH ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a directive to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the petitioner's account. The bank account was frozen at the instance of respondent No. 2, following complaints lodged by several individuals alleging that certain amounts had been fraudulently transferred to the petitioner's account. This Court had previously directed respondent No. 1 to furnish details regarding the exact amount of the proceeds of the crime allegedly lying in the petitioner's account held with the respondent-Bank.

2. The learned Government Advocate, representing the Respondent No.1 State, has furnished a copy of the list of complaints filed in relation to the bank account. However, no details have been provided regarding the exact amount of the proceeds of the crime lying in the petitioner's account with the respondent-Bank.

3. Therefore, the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without ascertaining the exact amount of the proceeds of the crime is not legally sustainable.

4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to unmark the lien of Rs. 2,42,08,936/- in relation to the petitioner's bank account, and the petitioner is permitted to operate the bank account in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond for the same amount.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner without following the due process of law.

6. The unmarking of the lien on the aforesaid amount is subject to the outcome of the investigation to be conducted by respondent No. 1. However, this will not come in the way of the petitioner operating the bank account.

Hand delivery is permitted.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document