Allowed¶27

Pulma Chakrawarti v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4301/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court writ petition (Art. 226) against bank 'debit-freeze' imposed without notice after cyber complaint flagging small disputed Paytm credit amounts; blanket account freeze held violative of principles of natural justice, disproportionate and arbitrary, lacking application of mind, risking commercial death of petitioner; account ordered de-frozen/activated except Rs. 8480/-; parties: Pulma Chakrawarti v. Union Bank of India and Ors (incl. R3/RBI); judge: Jasmeet Singh; themes: account freezing, cyber fraud complaints, natural justice, proportionality, arbitrariness, fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

Account No. 054622010000787 directed to be de-freezed and activated, remaining frozen only to the extent of Rs. 8480/-; petition allowed and disposed of in those terms. ¶27

Pulma Chakrawarti Vs Union Bank of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Account No. 054622010000787 directed to be de-freezed and activated, remaining frozen only to the extent of Rs. 8480/-; petition allowed and disposed of in those terms.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent bank could lawfully place the petitioner's entire account under debit-freeze, without notice, where only small amounts (Rs. 7,480/- and Rs. 1,000/-) were disputed and had already been credited back. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Court's factual finding: per Annexures P1 and P3, the disputed amounts of Rs. 7480/- and Rs. 1000/- stood already credited in the petitioner's account, the entire account was frozen solely for that reason, and besides those entries there was no other disputed entry or amount.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Freezing an account entails serious consequences creating hardships for commercial entities and might result in the commercial death of the account holder; the respondent bank cannot take such harsh measures without complying with the principles of natural justice and without application of mind.

¶25

Key takeaways

The impugned account freezing is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, is disproportionate, and is an arbitrary exercise of power striking a blow at the petitioner's fundamental rights.ratio¶26
The impugned action was taken without due application of mind, as an indiscriminate blanket freeze was imposed on the whole account for an allegedly suspicious entry of meagre amounts.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jasmeet Singh, J, 13.04.2026) — Art. 226 writ by a grocery-shop owner whose bank account was placed under 'debit-freeze' without notice (Aug 2024) over small disputed Paytm-sale credits (Rs. 7,480/- and Rs. 1,000/-) that had already been paid back. Holding the entire-account freeze for meagre disputed entries, imposed without notice, hearing or application of mind, to be in clear violation of natural justice, disproportionate and arbitrary — risking 'commercial death' of a commercial entity — the Court set the freeze aside and directed de-freezing and activation of the account except for Rs. 8480/-; petition allowed and disposed of. Prayers for disclosure of complaint details, a uniform policy/SOP and compensation were not specifically adjudicated.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4301/2026 & CM APPL. 20980/2026 PULMA CHAKRAWARTI

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr Ratnesh Sharma, Mr Gaurav Mathur, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Ms Ekta Choudhary, Ms. Priya Rathi, Ms. Rushali Sikand, Advs. for R1 Mr. Abhishek Baid, Mr. Mohit Kumar Bafna, Mr. Praneet Das and Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocates for R3/RBI

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 13.04.2026

¶9

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶10

“I. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 Bank to remove the “debit- freeze” status on the Petitioner's Account No. 054622010000787 in case there is no pending complaint as alleged OR alternatively direct Respondent No. 1 to remove the

¶11

“debitfreeze” status on the Petitioner's Account No. 054622010000787, subject to the petitioner giving an undertaking to the Bank for indemnifying it against any future liability to the extent of the disputed amount, in case the underlying complaint is still pending; AND/OR

¶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 16/04/2026 at 13:36:09

¶14

II. Direct Respondents Nos. 4 to provide reasons for taking such action including the complaint status, layer confirmation, and evidence of Petitioner's involvement (if any); AND/OR

¶15

III. Direct Respondents Nos. 3 and 5 to forthwith notify/implement to notify a uniform policy, standard operating procedures and guidelines to ensure that such matters are handled with appropriate lawful procedure; AND IV. Award exemplary costs and compensation in favor of the Petitioner for suffering harassment, mental agony and anxiety;...”

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner, a small grocery shop owner that routine credits of Rs. 32,522/- (24.11.2023) and Rs. 36,643/- (07.12.2023), representing daily sales via Paytm, were later partially disputed for small amounts of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 7,480/- in a cyber complaint. In August 2024, her account was placed under “debit-freeze” without notice. She was later informed that the freeze was due to a cyber complaint, but no details were provided until an email dated 07.04.2025. Despite repeated representations in February 2026 seeking de-freezing and details of the complaint, no action was taken, hence the present petition.

¶17

¶18

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶19

Ms. Choudhary and Mr. Baid, learned counsels accept notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively.

¶20

In view of the urgency of matter, the matter is being taken up for hearing and no notice is being issued to other respondents.

¶21

A perusal of Annexures P1 and P3 show that the disputed amount of Rs. 7480/- and Rs. 1000/- have been credited in the account of the petitioner and only for that reason the entire account of the petitioner has been

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 16/04/2026 at 13:36:09

¶24

freezed. Besides the above entries, there is no other disputed entry or amount in the petitioner’s account.

¶25

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. The respondent bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without complying with the principles of natural justice and without any application of mind.

¶26

For the said reasons, I am of the view that the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is not only in clear violation of the principles of natural justice but also disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The impugned action is without due application of mind as an indiscriminate blanket freeze has been imposed on the account of the petitioner for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amounts. Therefore, the action deserves to be set aside.

¶27

Consequently, the petition is allowed and it is hereby directed the account of the petitioner shall be de-freezed and activated except for an amount of Rs. 8480/-.

¶28

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed.

¶29

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶31

APRIL 13, 2026 / (MS)

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 16/04/2026 at 13:36:09

Pulma Chakrawarti v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulma Chakrawarti v. Union Bank of India and 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

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

Anita Kumari Shimar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vaibbhav Rawal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shashi Bhushan Badoni & Anr. Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Samrita Singh Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kuamr Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babu Lal Koli Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Devendra Singh Vs the Bses & Ors.

Vaibbhav Rawal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rasheed Ahmad and Another Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Umar Iqbal Raina Vs National Testing Agency Nta & Ors.

Singh Raj Singh Vs State Bank of India

DDA Staff Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs Delhi Development Authority

Nepal Singh Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.