HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
FINZER MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 18464/2024
Banking - Writ Petition - Directives for Account Freezes - Act Section List - The court directed the bank to seek clarity from investigation authorities regarding frozen accounts and established a timeline for decisions on account access, balancing the rights of the account holder against law enforcement needs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner faced difficulties in operating his account due to a freeze imposed after suspicious transactions were reported. Despite repeated inquiries, the petitioner lacked specific information about the allegations, prompting him to seek relief through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that existing directives in a similar case provided adequate protection for the petitioner's interests and laid out clear steps for the bank to follow concerning the freeze on the account.
Issues: Whether the bank's freezing of the account without specific communication regarding the disputed transactions amounts to a violation of the petitioner's rights, and what procedural safeguards are necessary in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that banks must communicate with investigative authorities about the amounts needing to be frozen and should allow transactions within specified limits, subject to the ongoing investigation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with specific directives for the bank and authorities regarding the handling of the account freeze.
Dated this the 12 th day of July, 2024 The petitioner is the holder of an account with the Ramanattukara branch of the Federal Bank. All on a sudden, the petitioner started facing difficulties in operating his account. He, therefore, approached the 5th respondent for ascertaining the reason.
Thereupon, the petitioner was informed that his account had been frozen based on requisitions received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal as there were certain suspicious transactions in the account.
2. In spite of the petitioner's efforts, he was not able to obtain specific details regarding the alleged transactions and the complete hold over his account is causing immense hardship. Hence, this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the bank to lift the debit freeze on the petitioner's account.
3. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, it was submitted that a batch similar matters were disposed of as per the decision reported in Dr.Sajeer vs. Reserve Bank of India [2023 KHC online 661].
4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Bank.
5. The respondents, at whose instance the requisitions were sent, did not appear despite service of notice through e-mail.
6. As far as the case at hand is concerned, I find the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra) to be sufficient for safeguarding the petitioner's interest.
Hence the writ petition is disposed of with the same directions extracted hereunder for easy understanding.
(i) In cases where the disputed amount is not specified, the respondent Bank is directed to immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority and seek the amount which is required to be kept in freeze or held in lien in the account of the petitioner. This shall be done by the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii)In cases where the disputed amount has been communicated by the concerned Police Officers, the respondent Banks are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit.
(iii)The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioner in this Writ Petition should be continued, and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and on receipt of such information from the Police Authorities, the Bank shall take necessary action either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.
(iv)If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Banks in terms of direction No. (iii) above, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again for necessary relief.
(v)If no information is received from the Police Authority/Investigating officer within a period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent Bank as per direction (i) above, the Bank shall allow the petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit freeze requisition, subject to any further information to be received from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer in future.
(vi) As an alternative, if the response from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer is that the entire account be frozen for any reason that is mentioned therein, then the Bank will inform the petitioner/account holder accordingly and continue the freeze in such a manner for a further period of eight months thereafter.
(vii) If, after a period of eight months, the requisition made by the Police Authorities -either to a particular
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.