Christian Brethren Assembly Trust, Vs Union… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Christian Brethren Assembly Trust, Vs Union… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of with observations (the account having already been defreezed by the bank), with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-bank's freezing of the petitioner's S/B account 005312010002466 without issuing any notice and without following due procedure/RBI regulations was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 26 and 300A of the Constitution, warranting a writ of mandamus directing unfreezing of the account. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondent-bank, being a public authority discharging public duties towards customers and the public at large, cannot take away any right conferred upon a customer without issuing notice and without following due process.

Ratio / Principle

Freezing of a bank account is a coercive and detrimental action against the account holder.

Key takeaways

Any detrimental or coercive action initiated by the bank must be supported by due process and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.ratio¶35
The bank, being a public authority, cannot freeze an account merely at the behest of certain members of the trust or on its own accord under the guise of safeguarding the interests of the institution.ratio¶35
The petitioner's bank account cannot be frozen even in default, without following due process of law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Mandamus (Article 226) — Bank account freezing without notice. The petitioner trust challenged Union Bank of India's freezing of its S/B account 005312010002466 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 26 and 300A, alleging absence of notice, breach of due procedure and RBI regulations. At hearing the Bank conceded no notice was issued and, following the writ petition, defreezed the account. The Court held that a bank, being a public authority, cannot take away a customer's right without notice and due process; freezing is a coercive and detrimental action that must rest on due process and natural justice; and the Bank cannot freeze an account merely at the behest of certain trust members or on its own accord. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, without costs.

[3329]

APHC010285802025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14375/2025

Between:

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN ASSEMBLY TRUST,, REG. NO. 1/2013, D.NO.49/50A-87-C1 LAXMI NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DIST. AP. REP BY ITS SECRETARY NEMILIDINNE RANGA REDDY.

...PETITIONER

AND

UNION BANK OF INDIA, Rep by its Branch Manager, Budhwarpet Branch, Kurnool Kurnool Dist. AP.

...RESPONDENT

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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in freezing the S/B account 005312010002466 of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 26 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to unfreeze the S/B account 005312010002466 of the Petitioner

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 pleased to issue an order to the Respondent to unfreeze the S/B account 005312010002466 of the Petitioner in the interest of justice, pending disposal of this writ petition

2

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.DASANI VENKATA RAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.RANGA SURYA PRAKASH RAO KOLA

The Court made the following:

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 14375/2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in freezing the S/B account 005312010002466 of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to unfreeze the S/B account 005312010002466 of the petitioner and pass such other order.”

The case of the petitioner herein is that the account of the petitioner bearing number 005312010002466 with the respondent/Bank is freezed by the respondent without issuing any notice and without following due procedure and in violation of the RBI regulations. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

At the time of hearing the Writ Petition, after instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Bank submits that in view of the civil disputes and complaints between the members of the subject trust, the Bank authorities in the interest of the petitioner trust, freezed the subject account.

The learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Bank further submits that it is true while freezing the bank account, the respondent-bank did not issued any notice to any of the

4

parties/members of the trust, but only the bank acted exclusively in its own interest. In view of the present Writ Petition, the respondentbank has taken steps and defreezed the account of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is observed that respondent-bank is a public authority and discharging the public duties in favour of the customers as well as public at large. Being a public authority, the respondent bank cannot take away any right conferred upon any customer without issuing any notice and without following due process. Freezing of the bank account is a coercive and detrimental action against the account holder. If such detrimental or coercive action is initiated by the bank, that action should be supported by due process and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, due to civil disputes between the members of the petitioner trust and in view of the request of the some of the members of the trust, the respondent bank being a public authority cannot act merely at the behest of certain members or on its own accord under the guise of safeguarding the interests of the institution, at the cost of violating the principles of natural justice and due process of law as contemplated under the law. In view of the clear and categorical submissions as stated above, the petitioner bank account cannot be freezed even in default, without following due process of law. Therefore, in the case in hand the respondent-bank already

5

defreezed the account. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by observing the same.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

25.07.2025 TPS

6

389

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO:14375 of 2025

25.07.2025 TPS