Allowed

Mohammed Ilyas, v. the Branch Manager

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022WP(C)/15782/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by HDFC Bank following a criminal investigation into a fraud case. The petitioner, acquitted of involvement after being arrayed as a witness, sought relief. The High Court held that since the primary accused was acquitted and no party objected to the freeze, the bank had no justification to maintain the freeze and was dire

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to unfreeze the petitioner's current account No. 12182020002478 forthwith; petitioner allowed to seek interest via representation.

Mohammed Ilyas, Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED ILYAS, JAFNA HOUSE, KONGANAM VEETIL, KARAKKAD, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680101. BY ADV C.K.SHERIN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK, GROUND FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, COCHIN- 682016. 2 THE NODAL OFFICER, HDFC BANK, CORDIAL RESIDENCY TOWERS, OPP.KURUPS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695010. 3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HDFC BANK LTD., HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATHI BAPAT ROAD, LOWER PARET (WEST), MUMBAI- 400013. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶12

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶14

-------------------------------

¶15

W.P.(C)No. 15782 of 2019

¶16

--------------------------------

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶20

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to unfreeze the petitioner's Current Account bearing No.12182020002478 maintained with first respondent.

¶21

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the outstanding amount lying in his account with interest on the balance amount.

¶22

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay adequate compensation for the business losses, monitory loss sustained by the petitioner during the freezing period and personal sufferings and other losses incurred to the petitioner and his firm.

¶23

and

¶24

(iv) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶25

The petitioner has been conducting a

¶26

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

proprietary concern engaged in export business under the name and style of 'Sea Life Exports'. The firm had maintained a current account with the erstwhile Centurion Bank Limited and routed all his business transactions through his current account. Consequently, the erstwhile Centurion Bank Limited merged with HDFC Bank Limited and the firm's current Account No.000930881101 with Centurion Bank Limited is redesignated as current Account No.12182020002478 with the HDFC Bank Limited, located in Choice Tower, Cochin. It is the case of the petitioner that the firm's current account with Centurion Bank Limited was freezed by the bank officials for the reason that one Mr. Subhash Mehtha had swindled bank with huge amount and the petitioner is associated with Mr. Subhash Mehtha. It is also stated that the Centurion Bank Limited had lodged a complaint with the police against Mr. Subhash Mehtha. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was originally a co-accused and subsequently he was arrayed as a witness. The petitioner was examined as

¶29

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

PW4 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom in the above case. After the trial, the Magistrate Court acquitted Subhash Mehtha as per Ext.P1 judgment. Even after the acquittal of Mr.Subhash Mehtha, the bank is not unfreezing the petitioner's account is the grievance of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. The above mentioned Subhash Mehtha is impleaded as additional 4^th respondent. Even though notice was send from this Court, there is no appearance for the additional 4^th respondent. Hence his service is declared as complete as per Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition and submitted that there is no justification on the part of the bank in freezing the current account of the petitioner.

¶34

On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that there was

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶37

objection from the additional 4^th respondent and that is why the account of the petitioner was freezed.

¶38

After hearing both sides, according to me,

¶39

there is no justification in freezing the current account of the petitioner. According to the counsel appearing for the bank, there was objection from the additional 4^th respondent. Even though notice was issued to the additional 4^th respondent, there is no appearance for the 4^th respondent and that itself shows that there is no grievance to the additional 4^th respondent. Moreover, the criminal case registered against the additional 4^th respondent entered in acquittal as evident by Ext.P1 judgment. In such circumstances, there is no justification on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to freeze the current account of the petitioner.

¶40

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶41

i. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to unfreeze the petitioner's current account bearing No. 12182020002478 maintained with the 1^st respondent

¶42

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶43

¶44

bank forthwith.

¶45

ii. The petitioner is free to approach respondents 1 to 3 with a representation for getting the interest for the period during which the account was freezed and if such a representation is received, the competent authority among the respondents 1 to 3 will take appropriate steps in accordance to law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C) NO. 15782 OF 2019

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15782/2019

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.04.2018 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKOM. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 01.02.2019 ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.

¶54

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

PA TO JUDGE

Mohammed Ilyas, v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ilyas, v. the Branch Manager

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

Majestic Constructions Vs v.P.Jafar Khan Muhammed

Perumpillil Raveendran R. Vs Union of India

N.Kanaka Bose Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Kunhambu Nair Vs Sub Collector/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Fathima Vs District Supply Officer

Bharat Advertising and Marketing Associates (Baama), Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority (Gcda)