Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.
Held
The Court held that the decisions in Malcolm Murayis (supra) and Archana (supra) were applicable mutatis mutandis to the present case. Following these precedents, the Court directed that the disputed amount of Rs. 12,519/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD). The Court further stipulated that if any other complaint is received by the Bank regarding other entries, the Bank may take appropriate action in accordance with law, keeping in mind the SOP issued by the Government as discussed in the Archana case. The disputed amount would be allowed to be liquidated only after orders are passed by the competent Judicial Magistrate within three months. If the Police agency fails to proceed in accordance with law within this period, the amount kept in FD may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner under intimation to the Police agency. Crucially, the Court directed that the petitioner's bank account shall be unfrozen, and the petitioner be permitted to operate the account.
Facts
The petitioner, Kavya Shrivastava, filed a writ petition seeking to de-freeze her bank account with HDFC Bank, from which an amount of Rs. 12,519/- was held. The petitioner contended that the freezing was done without complying with Sections 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, 2023, and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's case was argued to be covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Malcolm Murayis & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Others and Archana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. These previous judgments dealt with similar issues of bank accounts being frozen based on intimation from cyber cells, often without proper notice or adherence to established procedures.
Key Issues
1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by the respondent bank, without prior notice or adherence to statutory provisions like Sections 106(3) and 107 of the BNSS, 2023, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the freezing of her account was done without due process and in violation of constitutional rights. She relied on the High Court's decisions in Malcolm Murayis and Archana, which established procedures for handling frozen bank accounts in cybercrime cases, emphasizing the need for adherence to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and timely redressal mechanisms. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the context implies that the action of freezing the account was initiated based on information from cyber crime cells.
Sections Cited
Section 106, Section 107, Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21, Article 300A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: i) Direct the respondent bank to immediately de-freeze and remove the hold amount 12519/- and kept in the FD, from the bank account bearing No. with HDFC bank Ganga industries campus, Maksi road, Near krishi upaj Mandi, opposite govt. Warehouse, Branch District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. ii) Declare that the action of complete freezing the Petitioner’s account without complying Section 106(3), 107 of BNSS, 2023 and without following article 14, 19(1)(g), 21,300Abof the Constitution of India, is ‘illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. iii) Pass such further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the p
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.