SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
ASHRAF ALI ABDUL KAREEM – Appellant
Versus
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36611 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.S.MANSOOR, SRI.AKHIL BINOY, SHRI.JIS JOHN SEBASTIAN, SHRI.AHAMMED MIZWAR V.P.
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC

A bank must release funds under lien if no communication extends the lien beyond the stipulated judgment period.

Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks the release of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- kept under lien in the petitioner's bank account after eight months of a previous judgment allowing limited operation of the account. The court determined that no communication had been provided to prolong the lien, hence directing the bank to release the funds. The Respondent bank may apply a new lien upon future requisitions, adhering to the initial ruling found in Ext.P3.

Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests bank to release liened funds. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court orders bank to release funds based on prior judgment. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026

1. This is a case in which the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition when the Respondent No.1/Bank had received a requisition from the Respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for marking lien in the account of the Petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition. This Court had disposed of the Writ Petition by Ext.P3 judgment. In the Ext.P3 judgment, the Petitioner was allowed to operate the account, limiting the lien/debit freeze to the amount shown in the requisition. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition stating that even after a period of eight months after the date of receipt of Ext.P3 judgment, the Respondent No.2 has not informed the Bank regarding the period up to which the lien is to be continued.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Bank confirmed that after receipt of Ext.P3 judgment by Respondent No.2, eight months have elapsed and no communication has been received from him.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Respondent No.1/Bank to release the amount which is kept under lien/debit freeze in the account of the Petitioner as per the requisition from the Respondent No.2 considered in Ext.P3 Judgment. The Respondent No.1/Bank is free to effect further lien/debit freeze in case of receipt of future requisitions.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top