Delhi High Court
Ashutosh Bhardwaj vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce & Ors on 16 February, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 241/2017 & CM 1187/2017
ASHUTOSH BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Prakash Gautam, Advocate
versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Ekta Sikri and
Ms. Adwaita Sharma, Advocates with
Mr. Ved Prakash (AR) in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 16.02.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for issuing directions to the respondent/Bank to de-seal/release four Cash
Deposit Receipts (CDRs) belonging to him and his wife and the HUF and to
call upon the respondent/Bank to identify the concerned officers of the
Bank, who have committed dereliction of duty in the present case.
2. On the last date of hearing, Ms.Sikri, learned counsel for the
respondent/Bank was directed to obtain instructions from the Bank in the
context of the letter dated 3.10.2016, issued by the respondent/Bank to the
petitioner (Annexure-P-10).
3. Today, counsel for the respondent/Bank states that she has obtained
instructions from the Bank to the effect that there was an error on the part of
the Bank in invoking `Code 3' to `debit freeze' the four CDRs in question on
the ground of there being an Income Tax Attachment Order, as has been
mentioned in the e-mail dated 3.10.2016 addressed to the petitioner. She
clarifies that it has been stated in the latter half of the very same e-mail that
the four CDRs had been locked in on the basis of instructions received from
the IO, Anti Corruption Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated
19.12.2013.
4. The Bank was directed by the IO to seal the four accounts of the
petitioner and his wife in view of an order dated 18.12.2013 passed by
learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Tis Hazari Courts in
FIR No.30/2010. Copies of the letter dated 19.12.2013 issued by the Anti
Corruption Branch to the respondent/Bank and the letter dated 20.12.2013
issued by the respondent/Bank are handed over by learned counsel and taken
on record. She submits that now that the petitioner has clarified that the
aforesaid proceedings have been dropped against him and his wife, as
reflected in the order dated 14.5.2015 passed in WP(Crl.) No.2142/2013
(Annexure P-5) and subsequently, two bank accounts of the petitioner
maintained with the respondent/Bank have also been de-sealed in terms of
an order dated 28.9.2015 passed by the learned MM in FIR No.30/2010
(Annexure P-7), the respondent/Bank has no objection to de-sealing the four
CDRs in question, detailed in para 2 of the petition.
5. Counsel for the respondent/Bank also seeks to explain that no Income
Tax Attachment Order was issued in respect of the four CDRs as had earlier
been conveyed to the petitioner. She attributes the same to a
miscommunication that appears to have taken place on the part of four
officers who were then posted in the concerned branch of the
respondent/Bank. She assures the Court that the Bank shall be more
cautious in the future.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petition is disposed of
with direction issued to the respondent/Bank to forthwith de-seal the four
CDRs detailed in para 2 of the petition.
7. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending application, with
no orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2017
sk/mk
