Disposed¶28

Shivam Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank through Its Authorized Officer & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4433/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 4433/2026; Jasmeet Singh, J; decided 16.04.2026; bank account defreezing; blanket freeze of savings account; Kotak Mahindra Bank; account No. 3346863377; cybercrime complaint Bharuch City Gujarat; petitioner neither accused nor suspect; Rs. 25,000 disputed remittance to complainant; CJM Bharuch order dated 09.03.2024; bank notice dated 14.05.2024; limited lien versus whole-account freeze; Article 226 writ; Article 21 arbitrariness/proportionality; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the petitioner's savings bank account No. 3346863377 with respondent No. 1 (Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited) be made operative, in case there is no other lien from any other enforcement agency. ¶28

Shivam Sharma Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank through Its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4433/2026

¶4

SHIVAM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Palak Sirohi, Mr. Deepak Singh Antil, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Ateev Mathur, Mr. Amol Sharma Advs. for R-1 Mr. Neeraj Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Vivek Nagar, G.P for R-2/ UOI

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶11

¶12

16.04.2026

¶13

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

¶14

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 - Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to forthwith defreeze the Petitioner's Savings Bank Account No. 3346863377 and permit full operation thereof;

¶15

b) Declare that the blanket freezing of the Petitioner's entire bank account, despite identification and remittance of the alleged disputed amount of Rs. 25,000/-, is arbitrary, disproportionate, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 20/04/2026 at 13:36:47

¶18

c) Direct that, if at all any further action is required in relation to the alleged transaction, the same shall be restricted only to a specific and identifiable amount by way of a limited lien, and not by freezing the entire bank account of the Petitioner;

¶19

d) Award costs of the present writ petition in favour of the Petitioner; and…”

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in the business of promoting brands, which pay him through banking channels. The petitioner has a savings bank account bearing No. 3346863377 with respondent No. 1 i.e., Kotak Mahindla Bank Limited, Branch at Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi - 110031.

¶21

A cybercrime complaint was registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Bharuch City, Gujarat, against some unknown accused persons and the petitioner was neither an accuse nor suspect in the said complaint. During investigation, one transaction of Rs. 25,000/-, credited to petitioner’s account was identified as disputed, which the petitioner received in course of his business.

¶22

On directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 1 to remit the disputed amount of Rs. 25,000/- to complainant’s account. In pursuance thereof, respondent No. 1, vide notice dated 14.05.2024 intimated petitioner that the disputed amount of Rs. 25,000/- had been remitted to complainant’s account.

¶23

Despite the same, respondent No. 1 continues to operate blanket freeze on the petitioner’s bank account. Hence, the present petition.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 20/04/2026 at 13:36:47

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, states that there is no other transaction except for Rs. 25,000/-, which is borne out of the order dated 09.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch.

¶27

In view of the above, it is directed the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 3346863377 with respondent No. 1 i.e., Kotak Mahindla Bank Limited, Branch at Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi - 110031, shall be made operative, in case there is no other lien from any other enforcement agency.

¶28

The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶29

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶30

APRIL 16, 2026/sp

¶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 20/04/2026 at 13:36:47

Shivam Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank through Its Authorized Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank through Its Authorized Officer & 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

Onkar Raju Lamdade and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Telecommunications Consultants India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Seth Umashankar Agarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chamma Kushwaha Vs Government NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kunwer Sachdev Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Lvirgo Pharma Vs Commissioner of Cgst & Anr.

Shivani Priyam & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Vs Raju

Onkar Raju Lamdade and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Deepanshu Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Nuneselhou Shurhiu Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Ms Tekram Enterprises Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shlok Bhardwaj Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sarah Arshad Vs National Testing Agency