Kerala High Court
Leisure Tours And Travels vs The Manager, Hdfc Bank on 24 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 2828 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:15610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2828 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
LEISURE TOURS AND TRAVELS
AGED 28 YEARS
LEISURE TRAVEL AND TOURS NIPPON Q1 MALL,7TH FLOOR NH
66, CHAKKALAKKAL PALARIVATTOM , KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SAJA
HANOON S/O ABDULLA VELLAPALLAM KANDY
SIVAPURAM ,KARUMALA,KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN - 673612
BY ADV SRI.ASHIS A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER, HDFC BANK
BANERJI RAOD BRANCH GROUND FLOOR, SUDHAS TOWER
MADHAVA PHARMACY, JUNCTION, KACHERIPADY, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682018
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER ECONOMIC & NARCOTIC
CRIME POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA
RAMAMURTHY RD, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA
EMAIL:[email protected], PIN - 562101
R1 BY SRI P SATHEESAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2828 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:15610
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.50200090709481.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above
bank account with the 1st respondent bank. The petitioner
contends that the 1st respondent has frozen the petitioner's
bank account pursuant to a requisition received from the
2nd respondent. The action of the 1st respondent is illegal
and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri.P.Satheesan, the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.30,00,000/-. The
said submission is recorded.
2025:KER:15610
5. In considering an identical matter, this
Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1)
KLT 826] held as follows:
" a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, 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.
b. The respondent - Police Authorities concerned are hereby
directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether
freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions
will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if
so, for what further time, within a period of eight months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation
from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and
complete necessary action - either continuing the freeze for
such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the
case may be.
d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by
their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioners
or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this
Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these
Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in
future."
6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.
Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768],
after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra)
and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of
2025:KER:15610
Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D
Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v.
State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento
Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 895], has held thus:
"8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, while
delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may
only be an irregularity, total failure to report the seizure will
definitely have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In
such circumstances, account holders like the petitioner, most of
whom are not even made accused in the crimes registered,
cannot be made to wait indefinitely hoping that the police may
act in tune with S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under
Sub-section (3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter,
the following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in
Dr.Sajeer (supra).
(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the banks
whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the
jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which
the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance
or the proposal to comply with the S.102 is informed to bank
within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank
shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.
(ii) In order to enable the police to comply with the above
direction, the bank as well as the petitioner shall forthwith serve
a copy of this judgment to the officer concerned and retain proof
of such service.
7. I am in complete agreement with the views in
Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above
principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.
2025:KER:15610
In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ
petition by passing the following directions:
(i). The 1st respondent Bank is directed to confine
the freezing order of the petitioner's bank
account only to the extent of the amount
mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the
Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be
done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to
transact through their account beyond the said
limit;
(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby
directed to inform the Bank as to whether
freezing of the petitioner's account will be
required to be continued even in the afore
manner; and if so, for what further time;
(iii). On the Bank receiving the afore
information/intimation from the Police
Authorities, they will adhere with it and
complete 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 Bank in terms of direction (ii)
above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to
approach this Court again; for which purpose,
all their contentions in this Writ Petition are left
open and reserved to them, to impel in future;
(v). The jurisdictional police officers shall
inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank
account has been reported to the jurisdictional
Magistrate and if not, the time limit within
which the seizure will be reported. If no
intimation as to the compliance or the proposal
2025:KER:15610
to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is
received by the Bank within two months of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank
shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as
the case may be, on the petitioner's bank
account;
(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply
with the above direction, the Bank, as well as the
petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of this
judgment to the jurisdictional officer and retain
proof of such service.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:15610
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2828/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF IEFT AND
OS LICENSE ISSUED BY KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 20/01/2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK
