Single Bench disposed of a curative appeal against an order refusing to unfreeze bank accounts. The Court directed the lower court to expedite the hearing upon a further mention.
The appeal was disposed of without interfering in the order of the learned Single Judge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5 ss/jks 09.12.2021
MAT 783 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2021 Local Cube Private Limited & Anr. Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Through Video Conference)
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta Mr. Saurabh Prasad Mr. Subhabrata Datta Mr. Debashis Sarkar
… … for the appellants
… … for the State
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.06.2021 passed in WPA No. 8611 of 2020 whereby the learned Single Judge has declined the prayer of the appellants for lifting the order of freezing the bank account.
Record reveals that the appellants have approached the learned Single Judge by challenging the letter dated 29th July, 2020 in respect of freezing of his bank account. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that for a sum of 54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand only) his entire bank account containing an amount around 50,000,00/- (Rupees fifty lakh only) has been frozen and his business is suffering.
Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the learned Single Judge and has submitted that since investigation in the criminal case is pending and there is likelihood that the bank account may
2
contain the proceeds of other crime, defreezing is not possible.
Having examined the record, we have noticed that the learned Single Judge has kept the writ petition pending by permitting the parties to file affidavit-inopposition and affidavit-in-reply and also granted liberty to mention.
It is pointed out that the investigation is still pending. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to inform as to how long will the concerned authority take to conclude investigation. It is also pointed out that the investigation has been started in July, 2020 and thereafter substantial time has lapsed. Therefore, every endeavour should be made by the concerned respondent to complete the investigation without any unnecessary delay.
It has been stated before this Court that affidavitin-opposition and affidavit-in-reply have been filed in the writ petition.
The writ petition itself can now be heard finally. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellants should exercise the liberty to mention, granted by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal.
We express hope that if such a mention is made by the appellants, learned Single Judge will consider the prayer and hear the petition itself expeditiously having regard to the nature of dispute involved.
3
With the aforesaid, we dispose of the appeal without interfering in the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal being MAT 783 of 2021 along with CAN 1 of 2021 are accordingly disposed of.
(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the Single Judge's order declining prayer for freezing bank accounts should be disposed of without interference.
Local Cube Private Limited & Anr.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Prakash Shrivastava
Rajarshi Bharadwaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
