Disposed

Pragada Ravi Shankar v. The Bank of Baroda

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jul 2024WP/284/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking defreezing of a savings bank account frozen at the instance of the CID. The respondent authorities issued written instructions to unfreeze the account, and the court disposed of the petition directing the bank to allow operation of the account in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to allow petitioner to operate his SB account in accordance with law; no costs.

Pragada Ravi Shankar Vs The Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 284 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pragada Ravi Shankar, S/o Rama Rao, Rep by R.S.Enterprises, R/o D.No.8-21/1, Subrahmanya SwamyTempie, Reiangi Iragavaram Mandal, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶9

...Petitioner{S)

¶10

AND

¶11

The Bank of Baroda, Rep by its Senior Branch Manager, Court Raod Branch, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent of Poiice, CID, Regional Office, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari Dist.

¶13

...Respondent/S

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in freezing the savings bank account of the petitioner bearing Acct.No.84470500000375 in Bank of Baroda, Court Road Branch, Tanuku

¶15

vide Letter Dt 23-08-2022 without giving any notice is illegal, arbitrary, •' against the principles of natural justice, and violative of Article 14 21 and 300A of Constitution of India. Consequently direct the 1st respondent bank to de-freeze the account and allow the petitioner in operating his SB Account bearing No.84470500000375 by forthwith.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent Bank to allow the petitioner in operating his SB Account bearing No.84470500000375 in Bank of Baroda, Court Road Branch, Tanuku by forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitloner{s);SRI. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: O N KRISHNA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : SRI. Y L SIVAKALPANA REDDY, SC

¶21

FOR CID

¶22

The Court made the following: OREDER

APHC010000932024

Sn-Yi.^

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 284/2024

Between:

Pragada Ravi Shankar

...PETITIONER

AND

The Bank Of Baroda and Others

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶38

N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent{S);

¶40

1.Y L SIVAKALPANA REDDY(SC CUM SPL PP.CID)

¶41

2.0 N KRISHNA

¶42

The Court made the following;

¶43

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶47

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus^to declaring the action of the respondents in freezing the savings bank account of the petitioner bearing Acct No.84470500000375 in Bank of Baroda, Court Road Branch, Tanuku vide Letter Dt.23.08.2022 without giving any notice is illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India Consequently direct the 1st respondent bank to defreeze the account and allow the petitioner in operating his SB Account bearing No.84470500000375 by forthwith and to pass such other order or orders

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein opened savings bank account vide A/c.No. 8447050000075 in the Bank of Baroda, Court Road Branch, Tanuku on behalf of M/s. R.S. Enterprises and is doing^business transactions through the 1®* respondent- bank. While so, on 20.09.2022, one online transaction got declined through^ATM card. Thus, the petitioner herein approached the respondent^bank for verification and he was informed that his account was freezed basing upon the letter dated 23.08.2022 addressed by^the 2 nd respondent. He further submits that the 1®* respondent-bank^has expressed his inability to defreeze the account without there being any modified proceedings to be issued by the 2 nd respondent. Having no other option, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶50

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing^for the respondent furnished written instructions dated 06.07.2024 issued by the 2’^^ respondent. The operative portion of the said instructions reads as follows:

¶51

“...In this connection, vide reference 2'^^ read above, I have addressed a letter to you requesting to freeze the A/c.No.8447050000075

¶52

represented by M/s. R.S.Enterprises, Tanuku as part of enquiry, accordingly, same was frozen by you.

¶53

Whereas, now basing on the current scenario, the Bank /Vc.No.84470500000375 represented by R.S.Enterprises, Tanuku has to be de-freezed.

¶54

Therefore, as requested to Un-freeze the above mentioned //c.No.84470500000375 Immediately without any delay for operating the account freely and send an action taken by you In this regard to this office via mail id: [email protected]. “

¶55

In view of the categorical subnnission made by the respondents that they have already addressed a letter^forde freezing the account of the petitioner, nothing further^remains in the present writ petition.

¶56

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel^forthe respondents and on perusal of the written instructions dated 06.07.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent, the claim of the petitioner was already redressed and proceedings were also issued de-freezing the account of the petitioner. Therefore,^the1®* respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to operate^hisbank account in accordance with law.

¶57

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing^the 1 St

¶58

respondent to allow the petitioner to operate his bank^accountin

¶59

accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

¶61

the writ petition shall stand dosed.

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

P-^ V.BHASKAR RAO assistant registrar

¶64

To,

¶65

SECTION OFFICER

¶66

The Bank of Baroda, Rep by its Senior Branch Manager, Court Raod Branch, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶67

The Deputy Superintendent of Poiice, CID, Regional Office, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari Dist.

¶68

One CC to SRI. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

One CC to SRI. O N KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

One CC to SRI. Y L SIVAKALPANA REDDY, SC FOR CID [OPUC]

¶71

Three CD Copies

MSST

' ^

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/07/2024

ORDER WP.No.284 of 2024

¶77

^ 25 MAR a® m
^ Curreni secuon

¶78

DISPOSSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH OUT COST

Pragada Ravi Shankar v. The Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragada Ravi Shankar v. The Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Chand Basha Vs Sashi Bhusan Kumar IAS

Shaik Chand Basha Vs Sashi Bhushan Kumar IAS

Pogula Sudheer Reddy Vs Sashi Bhusan Kumar IAS

Uppu Siddhu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

More Vinod, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

More Vinod Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh