Disposed

Balaji Multiple v. the Icici Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Oct 2025I.A.(Civil)/2993/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A proprietorship firm whose bank accounts were frozen amid alleged fraudulent activities sought interim relief in its writ petition. The court recorded that the ICICI Bank account was not actually frozen and directed that the HDFC Bank account be allowed to operate subject to Rs.2,60,000 being kept intact, with liberty to HDFC Bank to seek modification.

What did the court decide?

HDFC Bank account no. 50200035658652 to be operated by petitioner during pendency of WP(C)/5086/2025, with Rs.2,60,000 kept intact; ICICI Bank prayer redundant.

Balaji Multiple Vs the Icici Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010201092025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2993/2025

WP(C)/5086/2025

BALAJI MULTIPLE

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BALDEV HANUMANMAL SETHIA, NAGAON, ASSAM, CONDUCTS BUSINESS AT 1, JADURAM SAIKIA PATH, LAOKHOWA ROAD, HAIBORGAON, NAGAON782002, ASSAM

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE ICICI BANK LTD. AND 4 ORS

¶12

ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400051.

¶13

2:THE HDFC BANK LTD. RAMON HOUSE 169 BACKBAY RECLAIMATION H T PAREKH MARG CHURCHGATE MUMBAI-400020.

¶14

3:THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC BANK NAGAON BRANCH A.T. ROAD HAIBORGAON NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782002.

¶15

4:THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK NAGAON BRANCH A.T. ROAD HAIBORGAON

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782002.

¶18

5:THE OFFICER IN CHRAGE

¶19

CEN POLICE STATION- CHIKKABALAPURA RAMAMURTHY ROAD CHIKKABALAPURA KARNATAKA-562001

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HOSSAIN,

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I C I C I BANK,

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶23

ORDER

¶24

13.10.2025

¶25

Heard Shri I. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant / writ petitioner and Shri M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent – ICICI Bank.

¶26

In the connected WP(C)/5086/2025, while issuing notice on 08.09.2025, dasti service was also permitted upon the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5. When this application was taken up for consideration on 25.09.2025, this Court had noticed that though the dasti service was said to be affected and an affidavit filed, the said affidavit was not tagged with the records and accordingly it was directed for tagging the said affidavit with the records. The affidavit have been brought to the records of the writ petition which have been perused and it appears that the respondent – HDFC Bank has been served in spite of which it has chosen not to appear and contest in this proceeding.

¶27

Shri Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this application involves two accounts, namely-

¶28

a. Account no. 070751000054 maintained in the ICICI Bank, Nagaon

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

Branch and

¶31

b. Account no. 50200035658652 maintained in the HDFC Bank, Nagaon Branch.

¶32

He has submitted that the amount alleged to be involved in some fraudulent activities with which the applicant is not at all connected is Rs.2,59,704/- and in the account of HDFC Bank, there is an amount of Rs.7(seven) lakhs (approx.) and because of the action of freezing of the account the business of the applicant has been adversely affected.

¶33

Shri M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent – ICICI Bank has however clarified that so far as the aforesaid account in the ICICI Bank is concerned, there is no action of any freezing and therefore, the prayer made qua that account is redundant.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances and balancing the equities, it is provided that during the pendency of the connected writ petition, the account no. 50200035658652 maintained in the HDFC Bank, Nagaon Branch will allow to be operated by the petitioner with a condition that an amount of Rs.2,59,704/rounded off Rs.2,60,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh and Sixty Thousand) shall be kept intact.

¶35

Since this order has been passed ex-parte, the HDFC Bank would be at liberty to apply for modification of the same, if so advised.

¶36

The application accordingly stands disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Balaji Multiple v. the Icici Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Multiple v. the Icici Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Hekim Vs the Union of India and Othrs

Azial Hoque Vs Dr. J. B. Ekka and 3 Ors.

Bankas Manifold Trade Link Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Pranab Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dewan Nurul Amin and 6 Ors. Vs Deba Kumar Mishra and 3 Ors.

Konpona Hazarika and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.