A bank is obligated to comply with an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal to freeze an account upon communication, and is not required to insist that the order-holder first initiate execution proceedings in a court.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BE ISSUED TO QUASH THE DEBIT FREEZE IMPOSED BY RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONERS SAVINGS ACCOUNT (NO. 2002 200 1523) PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATION ORDER IN CASE NO. LEXUSLFL36, AS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued to quash the debit freeze imposed by Respondent on the petitioner’s savings account (No.20022200015239) pursuant to the arbitration order in Case No.LexusLFL36, as mentioned in Annexure-A.

ii. A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Respondent to immediately de-freeze the petitioner’s savings account (No.20022200015239) and restore normal banking operations.

iii. Award damages to the petitioner for financial loss and mental distress caused by the arbitrary freeze, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

iv. Any other writ, direction or relief’s us this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent-Band has frozen the Bank Account in pursuance of the order passed by the Arbitrator in a proceeding between IIFL Home Finance Ltd Vs. the Petitioner and others.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there was no requirement for the Respondent-Bank to have accepted the order passed by the arbitrator and frozen the account of the Petitioner without execution proceedings having been taken up in pursuance of the said order and the Execution Court having directed the Bank to freeze the account of the Petitioner.

4. I am unable to accept the said submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner inasmuch as it is not required in all the proceedings for execution proceedings to be taken up. If an order has been passed by any particular Authority including the Arbitral Tribunal, as done in the present case to freeze the account of the Petitioner and that order having been communicated to the Bank, it is for the Bank to accept and comply with the order which has been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is not required for the Bank to state that the person, who has obtained the order has to go before the Execution Court, obtain an order from the Execution Court and thereafter implement the order. Whenever any order is passed, it is required of all particular parties, who are bound by the said order to comply with the same. Once such compliance is made, the question of execution proceedings being required to be initiated, would not arise. Hence, no grounds being made, the petition stands dismissed.

5. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 stands dismissed.