Ht Media Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/5839/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HT Media Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 5839/2025, High Court of Delhi, decided 01.07.2025 by Vikas Mahajan, J. Keywords: debit freeze; precautionary freeze; bank account freeze; cybercrime complaints; www.shine.com; online recruitment marketplace; technology-based intermediary; The Ratnakar Bank Ltd.; RBL Bank; RBI; lien; credit balance; Article 21; right to livelihood; Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936); defreeze; police notices; investigating agency; early hearing CM APPL. 35544/2025; counter-affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent bank to de-freeze account no. 405638284478 (debit freeze removed) and mark lien on Rs. 10,06,770.89/-; bank to communicate any future complaint to the petitioner before adverse action; petition disposed of and the date fixed on 14.07.2025 cancelled

Ht Media Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether placing a debit freeze on the petitioner's entire bank account is justified when the individual disputed amounts are meagre and the bank's lien is limited to the disputed sum +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Applying Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936), the debit freeze on the petitioner's entire account is not justified where only a specific sum is disputed; the account is ordered de-frozen with lien to be marked on the disputed amount of Rs. 10,06,770.89/- referred to in para 6 of the bank's counter-affidavit

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of, the date fixed (14.07.2025) is cancelled, and the bank is directed that if it receives any complaint in future it shall communicate the same to the petitioner before taking any adverse action

¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bank account freeze — Debit freeze on the entire account of a media company (account no. 405638284478 with The Ratnakar Bank Ltd., respondent nos. 5 and 6) pursuant to Police notices amid complaints of 51 disputed amounts credited to the account — Bank's counter-affidavit showing total lien of Rs. 10,06,770.86/- against a credit balance of Rs. 11,26,81,851.49/-, with no further communication received from the investigating agency on the enumerated disputed transactions — Following Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936), wherein freezing of an entire bank account was held to invade the right to earn a livelihood protected under Article 21 of the Constitution — Held, freezing of the entire account unjustified where only a specific sum is disputed; account ordered to be de-frozen with lien marked on Rs. 10,06,770.89/- — Petition disposed of; date of 14.07.2025 cancelled; bank directed to communicate any future complaint to the petitioner before taking adverse action.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5839/2025

¶4

HT MEDIA LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Zuber Ali and Mr. Christopher Thomas, Advs.

¶5

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Survi Agarwal and Mr. Farman Rayeeni, Advs. for R-5 & R-6/RBL Bank. Ms. Tanya Chowdhary and Ms. Manisha Singh, Advs. for RBI. Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh and Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advs. for R-1 to R-3.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 01.07.2025

¶7

CM APPL. 35544/2025 (early hearing)

¶8

The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking early hearing of the petition.

¶9

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the petition is taken up today for hearing.

¶10

The application is disposed of.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 11:44:24

¶13

W.P.(C) 5839/2025

¶14

In view of the above order in CM Appl. 35544, the present petition is taken for consideration today itself with the consent of the parties as the counter-affidavit stands filed by the contesting respondents i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for direction to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 (The Ratnakar Bank Ltd.), to defreeze the account of the petitioner bearing no.405638284478 maintained by the petitioner with the said bank.

¶16

Mr. Umang Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a reputed and leading media company in India owning and operating multiple platforms including www.shine.com, an online recruitment market place that acts merely as a technology-based intermediary.

¶17

He submits that apart from offering services of recruitment on the said website, which is free, the petitioner is also offering courses in skill enhancement where various individuals all over the country are taking benefit of the said programmes.

¶18

He submits that at times some complaints are made by the individuals in case they are not satisfied by the services of the petitioner which has led to the freezing account of the petitioner on earlier occasions as well.

¶19

He submits that in the counter-affidavit, the respondent bank has referred to as many as 51 disputed amounts credited into the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner, but the petitioner has settled the matter with majority of the complainants and only few complaints remain unresolved. 10. He further contends that amount with regard to which individual

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 11:44:24

¶21

complaints have been made, are meagre, and on the basis of same, placing debit freeze on the entire account of the petitioner is not justified.

¶22

He invites attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit of respondent bank which is handed over in Court during the course of the proceedings. The same is taken on record. He submits that the bank itself has taken a stand that the lien amount is to the extent of Rs.10,06,770.86/-, though, the credit balance available in the aforesaid account is to the extent to Rs.11,26,81,851.49/-. The relevant paragraph from the counter affidavit reads thus:

¶23

“6) It is further submitted that on receipt of the Police notices instructing the bank to debit freeze/lien amount, the respondent bank had complied the Police notices and duly reverted the said authority. On 19.03.2025, precautionary freeze is marked on account. Total Lien Amount is INR 10, 06,770.86/-, Closing Balance on the account is INR 11,26,81,851.49/Available balance to this captioned account is under debit freeze. The actions are solely aimed at ensuring compliance with the legal obligations imposed upon us by the relevant statutory provisions......”

¶24

Mr. Tyagi submits that though, the petitioner dispute the lien amount, however, without entering into the said controversy, the petitioner has no objection in case the lien is marked on the said amount and the debit freeze is removed.

¶25

He further submits that the aforesaid account is the primary account of the petitioner, inasmuch as the said account is the only account of the petitioner’s business offering recruitment services through its website www.shine.com, and on account of such debit freeze having been placed, the petitioner is not able to pay the salaries of its employees ever since the

¶26

¶27

account was debit frozen.

¶28

A perusal of the counter-affidavit shows that the disputed transactions which have been enumerated in the para 3 of the counter-affidavit, are from 15.12.2023 till 04.03.2025, and it appears that there are only two transactions of the current calendar year, and the they are of the same date i.e. 04.03.2025.

¶29

On a query posed by the Court that whether any further communication has been received by the bank from the investigating agency, Ms. Survi Agarwal, the learned counsel for the respondent bank fairly states that no further communication has been received by the bank from the investigating agency in respect of the disputed transactions which have been enumerated in para 3 of the counter-affidavit.

¶30

This Court in Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2024 SCC OnLine Del 8936), while dealing with somewhat similar controversy, has observed as under:

¶31

"25. Indubitably, passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶32

26. Furthermore, when the Investigating Agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of petitioner has been freezed.

¶33

27. Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either

¶34

¶35

mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable, at the moment...”

¶36

In view of the above decision of this Court, and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the stand taken by the bank, it is expedient to de-freeze the aforesaid account of the petitioner with further direction to the bank to mark lien on an amount of Rs. 10,06,770.89/- as mentioned in para 6 of the counter-affidavit. Ordered accordingly.

¶37

The petition stands disposed of. The date already fixed in the petition i.e. 14.07.2025 stands cancelled.

¶38

It may also be observed that in case the bank receives any complaint in future, the bank shall communicate the same to the petitioner before taking any adverse action.

¶39

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶40

JULY 1, 2025/dss

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 11:44:24

Ht Media Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ht Media Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harcharan Singh Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Sudhir Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Jonmani Das Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, through the Dean, Students Welfare, & Anr.

Mohd Iqbal & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Choudary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Lathar Vs 1. Advance Surfactants India Ltd., (Under Liquidation) & Ors.

Nirupati Charan Sahoo Vs Union of India and Others

R Archith Sai Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kairosoft Ai Solutions Limited & Anr. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.

P D Model Secondary School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Justin Charles Vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.

Aadriti Pathak through Her Next Friend and Natural Mother Mrs. Sadhana Sharma Vs Gd Goenka Public School & Anr.

Omkarnath Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology and Medical Science Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Avinash Chander Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.