Disposed

Pankaj Gupta v. Union Ofindia & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3519/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's bank accounts had been defreezed by an earlier order in connected proceedings, but a Kotak Mutual Fund folio remained frozen following an NCLT order in Company Petition No. 33/2025 despite the petitioner not being party. Respondents raised no objection; the court directed the folio be defreezed subject to existing conditions on a Gurugram property.

What did the court decide?

Mutual Fund Folio No. 16258199 with Kotak Mutual Fund directed to be defreezed; condition against alienation of Unit STB 375, Gurugram maintained.

Pankaj Gupta Vs Union Ofindia & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~108

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3519/2026

¶4

PANKAJ GUPTA ....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Suvir Tandon, Mr Wattan Sharma Advs. versus UNION OFINDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Adv, CGSC; Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Adv, Mr. Tribhuvan, Adv, Mr. Abhimanyu and Ms. Anushka Sarraf, Adv for R1

¶6

Mr. Meghav Gupta, Advocate, Special Counsel for UOI, MCA for R1-2

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

18.03.2026

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

¶13

“a. For issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to immediately and forthwith remove the hold or freeze imposed upon the said Mutual Fund Folio No. 16258199 of the petitioner, which has been subjected to transaction restrictions only on the basis of an intimation or communication issued by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent no.2, despite the Petitioner not being arrayed as a party or respondent in Company Petition No. 33 of 2025 pending before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, and despite the petitioner having no connection with the said proceeding. ...”

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 23/03/2026 at 11:37:16

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.05.2025, the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (“ NCLT ”) passed an order in Company Petition No. 33 of 2025 titled as “ Union of India versus Gensol Engineering Limited and Others ” directed freezing of certain accounts of respondents in the said proceedings. However, the account of the petitioner was also freezed pursuant to the said order.

¶17

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Writ petition being W.P.(C) 14503/2025, which was allowed vide order 22.01.2026 and the accounts of the petitioner was directed to be defreezed, subject to conditions mentioned in paragraph No. 10 of the said order, which reads as under:-

¶18

“10. The account number Karur Vysya Bank (A/c No. 4103135000006942, Delhi Kashmere Gate Branch) and IDFC First Bank (A/c No. 10209707804, Green Park Branch, New Delhi) be defreezed and the petitioner shall not alienate, hypothecate, mortgage or create third party rights in the property bearing unit Unit STB 375 in "The Arbour" Sector63, Gurugram.”

¶19

Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that Mutual Fund Folio No. 16258199 maintained with Kotak Mutual Fund has also been subjected to debit and transaction restrictions. Consequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated17.02.2026 requesting removal of the restriction imposed on the said Mutual Fund Folio. However, the respondent No. 3 vide email dated 21.02.2026 declined the request.

¶20

Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned communication dated 27.02.2026 stating that the order dated 22.01.2026 applied only to two bank accounts and not to the mutual fund folio, and declined to grant relief

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 23/03/2026 at 11:37:16

¶23

Hence, the present petition.

¶24

Mr Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that since the accounts of the petitioner has already been defreezed pursuant to the order 22.01.2026, there is no reason as to why the Mutual Fund Folio No. 16258199 maintained with Kotak Mutual Fund of the petitioner should be put on freeze.

¶25

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶26

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and states that he has no objection to the defreezing of the Mutual Fund Folio of the petitioner as long as the directions contained in paragraph No. 10 of the order dated 22.01.2026 are maintained.

¶27

It is therefore directed that the Mutual Fund Folio No. 16258199 maintained with Kotak Mutual Fund of the petitioner shall be defreezed and the petitioner shall not alienate, hypothecate, mortgage, or create third party rights in the property bearing Unit STB 375 in "The Arbour" Sectot-63, Gurugram.

¶28

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶29

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶30

MARCH 18, 2026/AS

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 23/03/2026 at 11:37:16

Pankaj Gupta v. Union Ofindia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Gupta v. Union Ofindia & Ors.

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

Maj. Devanjana Ghoshal (Retd.) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Supreme Court of India Vs Anurag Mankotia

Supreme Court of India Vs Harsh Kumar Vashisht

Supreme Court of India through Its Registry (Deputy Registrar, Recruitment Cell, New Delhi) Vs Mohd Suffiyan

Masonic Public School Vs Delhi Jal Board

Kupamma Vs Telugu Middle School and Ors.

Mr. R and Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

The Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Jal Board & Anr. Vs Shri Umashankar Virat & Ors.

Dolly Vs National Medical Commission (Nmc) & Ors.

Ashish Vs University Grants Commission & Anr.

Prakriti Kwatra Vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.

Komal Gitaram Rohokale Vs Union of India & Ors.

Garima Arora Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Srishti Ojha Vs Medical Counselling Committee & Ors.