Bombay High Court
Serenity Trades Private Limited vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
Digitally signed
2025:BHC-OS:8840-DB
REVATI by REVATI
VAIBHAV 12.WP(L).13949.25.DOCX
VAIBHAV KADAM
KADAM Date:
2025.06.17
16:06:28 +0530 Revati
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.13949 OF 2025
Serenity Trades Private Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
______________________________________________________
Mr Prakash Shah Senior Counsel a/w Mr Prithviraj Choudhari
i/by Mr Aansh Desai i/by Pythagoras Legal, for Petitioner
Ms Prachi Takake, Addl. GP , for Respondent No.1 to 4.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 16 June 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.S.Sonak,J.):-
1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel, who appears
with Mr. Choudhari for the Petitioner and Ms. Prachi Takake,
Addl. GP for the Respondents.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The Petitioner challenges the provisional attachment
notice dated 24 April 2025 (Exhibit C-1), attaching the
Petitioner's following bank account with the HDFC Bank ;
(i) 14448630000036
(ii) 50200044096410
(iii) 99999908082009
(iv) 14448630000043
12.WP(L).13949.25.DOCX
4. Mr. Shah points out that the impugned attachment
notices purports to attach Petitioner's other bank accounts
also with the same PAN number.
5. Admittedly, as on date, no order raising any demand
has been issued against the Petitioner. Mr. Shah pointed out
that two show cause notices dated 5 June 2025 have been
issued to the Petitioners after the institution of this Petition.
But till date, no orders have been made adjudicating the show
cause notices or raising any demand. Since, no demands have
been raised against the Petitioners, we are doubtful whether
the impugned orders provisionally freezing the Petitioner's
bank account could have been made in this matter.
6. Mr. Shah, on instructions from Mr. Ramesh Kadam
representative of the Petitioner, who is present in the court,
submitted that the Petitioner's were prepared to proceed on
the basis that eventually some adverse order may be passed
against the Petitioners, which, the Petitioners, would be
required to appeal. He submitted that the impugned order
refers to a potential liability of Rs.3.56 Crores. He submits
that an appeal would require to deposit of 10% of the amount
which would come to approximately Rs.36 Lakhs. On
instructions, Mr.Shah submitted that the Petitioner would
maintain a deposit Rs.36 Lakhs in HDFC Bank Account
No.14448630000036 so that, should occasion for instituting
an appeal arises, this amount could be utilized for making
12.WP(L).13949.25.DOCX
pre-deposit. He submits that there was no reason to impose
any restrains on the Petitioner operating the account in so far
as the amounts in excess of Rs.36 Lakhs are concerned.
7. Considering the offer made, we interfere with the
impugned orders dated 24 April 2025. The same is quashed
and set aside. However, the Petitioner, consistent with its
above statement, will ensure that an amount of Rs.36 Lakhs
remains deposited in its Bank Account No. 14448630000036.
If any occasion arises for instituting an appeal, then, it will be
open to the Petitioner to transfer this amount to the
Respondents for adjustment towards pre-deposit.
8. The Respondents must inform the HDFC Bank about
this order and the setting aside of the orders dated 24 April
2025 freezing the Petitioner's bank account. The HDFC Bank
should also act on an authenticated copy of this order.
9. The Rule is disposed of in the above terms without any
cost order.
10. All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
