Aavri Travels LLP Vs the Manager, South Indian Bank

¶1

2025:KER:28580

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 39524 OF 2024

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

AAVRI TRAVELS LLP
DOOR NUMBER 9/814 A, MK BUILDING, UNNIKULAM PO,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED
PARTNER ARSHAD, AGED 30, S/O ABDUL KAREEM, CHIRAKKAL,
EKAROOL PO, UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574

¶9

BY ADVS.
ABDUL HADI M.P.
JAMEEL AHAMMED M.S.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, RP AHAMEDKUTTY BUILDING THAMARASSERY-BALUSSERY ROAD POONOOR PO UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA,, PIN - 673574

¶12

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE CEN POLICE STATION, NORTH EAST DIVISION, YELAHANKA BANGLORE CITY, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - EMAIL- [email protected], PIN - 560064

¶13

3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HARYANA POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SECTOR 6, PANCHKULA, HARYANA 134 138, EMAIL: [email protected]

¶14

(ADDL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA.1/2025 IN WP(C) 39524/2024 )

¶15

4 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MAHARASHTRA POLICE LION GATE, FORT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400001, EMAIL: [email protected]

¶16

(ADDL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA.1/2025 IN WP(C) 39524/2024 )

¶17

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 2

¶18

2025:KER:28580

¶19

5ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KARANATAKA CYBER POLICE, NRUPATUNGA STREET, AMBEDKAR
VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560
001 EMAIL:- [email protected]

¶20

(ADDL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA.1/2025 IN WP(C) 39524/2024 )

¶21

BY ADVS.
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
DEVAYANI NAIR T.H.(K/1531/2019)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 3

¶24

2025:KER:28580

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2025

¶27

The writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent

¶28

bank to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.0155073000000697.

¶29

The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 1^st respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 1^st respondent bank has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to the requisitions received from the police. The action of the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition

¶30

Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.5,31,151/-. The said submission is recorded.

¶32

In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:

¶33

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 4

¶34

2025:KER:28580

¶35

“ a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit.

¶36

b. The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.

¶38

d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.”

¶39

Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v.

¶40

Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶41

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 5

¶42

2025:KER:28580

¶43

Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999)

¶44

7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 895], has held thus:

¶45

“8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to report the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under Sub-section (3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra).

¶46

(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the banks whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with the S.102 is informed to bank within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.

¶47

(ii) In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the bank as well as the petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the officer concerned and retain proof of such service.”

¶48

I am in complete agreement with the views in

¶49

Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above

¶50

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 6

¶51

2025:KER:28580 principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand.

¶52

In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions:

¶53

(i). The 1^st respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through its account beyond the said limit;

¶54

(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time;

¶55

(iii) On the Bank receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be;

¶56

(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all the contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future;

¶57

(v) The jurisdictional police officers shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is

¶58

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 7

¶59

2025:KER:28580

¶60

received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's bank account;

¶61

(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply with the above direction, the Bank, as well as the petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional officer and retain proof of such service.

¶62

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶63

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶64

AJ

¶65

WP(C) No.39524 of 2024 8

¶66

2025:KER:28580

¶67

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39524/2024

¶68

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶69

Exhibit P1

¶70

A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF
INCORPORATION WITH LLP IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
AAR-0595 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT INDIA TO THE PETITIONER

¶71

Exhibit P2

¶72

TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 12.09.2024 WITH
ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 542/2024 SEND BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER INTIMATING
FREEZING OF HIS ACCOUNT

¶73

NOTICE THROUGH EMAILGmail - NOTICE OF WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
39524 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF HONOURABLE HGIH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶74

NOTICE THROUGH EMAILGmail - NOTICE OF WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
39524 of 2024 ON THE FILES OF HONOURABLE HGIH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Aavri Travels LLP v. the Manager, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aavri Travels LLP v. the Manager, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subair. C Vs Au Small Finance Bank

Steaphen Antony Venansious Vs Child Welfare Committee Kottayam

Merchant Navy Club Represented by Its Vice Presindent- Capt Ep Radhakrishnan Vs Kerala Maritime Board Represented by Its Chief Executive Officer

Vineesh T Vs the Station House Officer Panangad & Another

Jackson Mathew Vs the Regional Fire Officer

Nadhiya T. B. Vs Union of India