Disposed

Meera Srivastava and Another v. Punjab and Sind Bank Thru. Its General Manager New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2025WRIC/9089/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow sought mandamus to defreeze her joint bank accounts frozen amid a succession suit filed by her son. With no interim injunction from the Civil Judge, the court directed impleadment of the children as respondents, asked the bank for instructions, and permitted release of Rs 5,07,329 against an indemnity bond.

What did the court decide?

Rs. 5,07,329/- released against indemnity bond; case listed fresh next week.

Meera Srivastava and Another vs Punjab and Sind… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9089 of 2025

¶3

Meera Srivastava And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab And Sind Bank Thru. Its General Manager New Delhi And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jag Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sharad Kumar Shukla

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶13

" a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties to defreeze the account no. 7781000000410 and its allied accounts lying in the Punjab and Sind Bank Branch Vikas Nagar, Lucknow details of which are given in para no. 4 & 7 of the present writ petition, pass book reflecting the name of the petitioner is appended as Annexure no. 1 & 4 to this writ petition and permit the petitioners from the account mentioned above. "

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 and her husband have two bank accounts with the respondents bank, in one account i.e. Account no. 7781000000410, the petitioner is primary account holder and the husband of the petitioner was the joint account holder and in second account i.e. Account No. 7781000002952, the petitioner's husband was a primary account holder and the petitioner is the joint holder. The husband of the petitioner died on 12.08.2023. The amounts relating to the retiral and death benefits to the petitioner no.1's husband were credited in Account No. 7781000000410 from Account No. 7781000002952. However, she came to know that one

¶15

WRIC No. 9089 of 2025

¶16

¶17

of the cheques issued by the petitioner no.1 was declined to be honored by the bank on the ground that the account had been put on debit freeze. In the month of July, the Income Tax Department had issued a challan for payment of income tax to the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no. 1 requested the bank through her elder daughter to remove the debit freeze on her account so that she can make payment of tax liability. However, the bank paid no heed. It has been submitted that Account No. 7781000000410 is not involved in any investigation by any agency.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has pointed out page 25 of the writ petition, which is a Suit for Succession Application No. 270 of 2024 filed by the Deepesh Srivastava S/o Late Dinesh Chand Srivastava against the property of Late Dinesh Chand Srivastava and Meera Srivastava the petitioner no.1 and Deepika Srivastava his sister, which Suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Lucknow, and therefore, the Bank cannot remove the debit freeze, which have been requested to put on such account by Sri Deepesh Srivastava.

¶19

On a specific query being made, the counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no interim order granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow injuncting the bank from releasing any payment from the petitioner's account of which she is a primary holder.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead her son, namely, Deepesh Srivastava and her daughter, namely, Deepika Srivastava as respondents no.4 & 5 by means of an appropriate impleadment application.

¶21

List this case in the next week, as fresh.

¶22

In the meantime, the counsel for the bank shall seek instruction as to whether the bank can withhold release of money from the account of the petitioner without their being any interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the Succession Suit.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has to pay Rs. 5,07,329/- as tax to the Income Tax Department.

¶24

WRIC No. 9089 of 2025

¶25

¶26

The bank as an interim measure, it is directed that the bank shall take an indemnity bond from the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 5,07,329/and release Rs. 5,07,329/-to the petitioner for payment of tax liability.

¶27

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶28

September 16, 2025 Darpan Sharma

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meera Srivastava and Another v. Punjab and Sind Bank Thru. Its General Manager New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Srivastava and Another v. Punjab and Sind Bank Thru. Its General Manager New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs M/S Moradabad Development Authority Thru. Authorized Person

Dr.Haseena Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Amitabh Thakur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Legislative Deptt. Lko. and Another

Amar Kumar Sonkar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Shivpuri Industries Thru. Proprietor Devesh Patel vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 2 Others

Sukai Ram vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue U.P. Lucknow