Partly allowed

Diaspay Fintech Private Limited v. the State of Maharastra

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/19261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition seeking condonation of bank account freeze. Held that freezing without ascertaining crime proceeds is unsustainable. Directed bank to release lien of Rs. 2.42 crore subject to indemnity. Directed state not to take coercive steps without following due process.

What did the court decide?

Directed bank to unmark lien of Rs. 2,42,08,936/- subject to petitioner furnishing indemnity bond. Directed respondents not to take coercive steps without following due process of law.

Diaspay Fintech Private Limited Vs the State of… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38269 WP No. 19261 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19261 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DIASPAY FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.62/1, NEW NO.7, 1ST CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 032, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT-2013. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO/DIRECTOR, RAJESH TUBATI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O KOTESWARAO,RAVINDRA TAGORE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 032.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NANDEESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. VISHAL PADIR, POLICE INSPECTOR AND INVESTIGATION OFFICER, CYBER POLICE STATION, SECTOR-5,

¶13

SAVLI BUILDING, NEAR D.Y PATIL HOSPITAL, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706,

¶14

THE AXIS BANK BRANCH MANAGER, KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK, PREMIUM BRANCH, NO. 21, 4TH BLOCK, 80 FEET RD, S.T. BED, CAUVERY COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 095.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISH K.S, GA FOR R1; SMT. SREEDEVI K.B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38269 WP No. 19261 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OD INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECT THE R2, TO MARK LIEN OF PETITIONER ESCROW ACCOUNT NO. 923020072741551 ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISPUTED AMOUNT AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a directive to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the petitioner's account. The bank account was frozen at the instance of respondent No. 2, following complaints lodged by several individuals alleging that certain amounts had been fraudulently transferred to the petitioner's account. This Court had previously directed respondent No. 1 to furnish details regarding the exact amount of the proceeds of the crime allegedly lying in the petitioner's account held with the respondent-Bank.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate, representing the Respondent No.1 State, has furnished a copy of the list of complaints filed in relation to the bank account. However, no details have been provided regarding the exact amount of the proceeds of the crime lying in the petitioner's account with the respondent-Bank.

¶24

Therefore, the freezing of the petitioner's bank account without ascertaining the exact amount of the proceeds of the crime is not legally sustainable.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:38269 WP No. 19261 of 2024

¶27

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to unmark the lien of Rs. 2,42,08,936/- in relation to the petitioner's bank account, and the petitioner is permitted to operate the bank account in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond for the same amount.

¶28

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner without following the due process of law.

¶29

The unmarking of the lien on the aforesaid amount is subject to the outcome of the investigation to be conducted by respondent No. 1. However, this will not come in the way of the petitioner operating the bank account.

¶30

Hand delivery is permitted.

¶31

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶32

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK

Diaspay Fintech Private Limited v. the State of Maharastra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diaspay Fintech Private Limited v. the State of Maharastra

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

Miss. Karishma P Shah Vs M/S. Bindu Ventures

Sri M C Shankar Vs Smt Yallamma

Dr.Archana Singh Vs Idfc Mutual Fund

Sri N S Ravi Kumar Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Sri Thulasi Prasad H T Vs the Joint Director

Wilson Garden Club Vs State of Karnataka