Disposed¶22

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/19605/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 19605/2025 Delhi High Court Jasmeet Singh J; bank account freeze/de-freeze; HDFC Bank respondent No.2; lien on disputed amount Rs. 3,76,373/-; Article 226 read with Article 227; commercial death of petitioner; challenge freezing per SOP; petition not pressed; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permission to operate the frozen current account no. 50200109676996, subject to respondent No.2 bank maintaining lien on the disputed amount of Rs. 3,76,373/-, to be implemented within one week; petitioner at liberty to challenge the freezing of that amount in accordance with the SOP; petition not pressed and disposed of along with pending applications. ¶22

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose current account no. 50200109676996 with respondent No.2/HDFC Bank was frozen, should be permitted to operate the account notwithstanding the disputed amount of Rs. 3,76,373/-.

¶19

Court's answer

Freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences, creating hardships for commercial entities in their smooth functioning, and may result in the commercial death of the petitioner.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Subject to respondent No.2 bank maintaining lien on the disputed amount of Rs. 3,76,373/-, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account, and the needful shall be done within one week.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner remains at liberty to challenge the freezing of Rs. 3,76,373/- in accordance with the SOP.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.) disposed of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by FARHANEX TRADEX Private Limited, whose current account no. 50200109676996 with HDFC Bank (respondent No.2) had been frozen. Observing that freezing of an account entails serious consequences and may result in the commercial death of the petitioner, the Court directed that, subject to the bank maintaining lien on the disputed amount of Rs. 3,76,373/-, the petitioner be permitted to operate the account, the needful to be done within one week, while reserving the petitioner's liberty to challenge the freezing of that amount in accordance with the SOP. Counsel for the petitioner thereupon did not press the petition, which was disposed of along with pending applications.

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 19605/2025, CM APPL. 81956/2025 FARHANEX TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms Antara Mishra, Advocate, Mr Kuldeep Jauhari Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shivang Singh, Advocate & Mr. Pulin Kumar, Advocate.for R-2

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 13.07.2026

¶9

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer(s):-

¶10

“A. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned actions of the Respondents in freezing the banking operations pertaining to Current bank account No. 50200109676996 of the Petitioner maintained with Respondent No.2/ HDFC Bank, Plot No 10, Block 10, Dwarka Sector 10, New Delhi – 110075. …”

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has current account with respondent No.2/ HDFC Bank (Plot No. 10, Block 10, Dwarka Sector 10, New Delhi – 110075) bearing account no. 50200109676996. As per the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has arbitrarily and illegally freezed the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 16/07/2026 at 12:05:55

¶14

current account of the petitioner without any prior notice/justification or lawful authority.

¶15

The petitioner has been visiting the office of the respondent No. 2 but the account has still not been defreezed. Hence, the present petition.

¶16

Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, states that there are 253 instructions to freeze the account and the disputed amount is about Rs. 3,76,373/- .

¶17

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶18

The freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for commercial entities in their smooth functioning and the same might result in commercial death of the petitioner.

¶19

Since the disputed amount is of Rs. 3,76,373/-, subject to the respondent No.2 bank maintaining lien on the said amount, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account. The needful shall be done within one week from today.

¶20

The petitioner shall also be at liberty to challenge the freezing of Rs. 3,76,373/- in accordance with the SOP.

¶21

In this view of the matter, Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not press the present petition.

¶22

With these directions, the petition is disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.

¶23

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶24

JULY 13, 2026/JK

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 16/07/2026 at 12:05:55

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhanex Tradex Private Limited 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India

Dinesh Solanki & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Suresh Singhal Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Isha Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

M/S Shah Caters Vs Archeological Survey of India

Cloud 9 Prjoects Private Limited Vs Anubhav Gupta & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raja Rajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences Girls Vs Union of India and Ors.

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India

Mr Tilak Raj Bhagat & Anr. Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Sarada Institute of Teacher Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sd College of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Badal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Abubakar (Minor) through Father Zia Ur Rehman Vs the Education Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd) and Ors.