Petition under Article 226 sought mandamus to de-freeze a savings account held with a local bank respondent. The court dismissed the petition, noting that only the bank respondent fell within jurisdiction, while the police directorate and other parties were outside the court's territorial reach.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.38138 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.38138 of 2024
Ramkumar Ravichandran ... Petitioner
versus
2.The ICICI Bank, Head Office, Corporate Officer, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurala Complex, Mumbai - 400 051.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's saving bank account bearing No.034201004867, R.S.Puram Branch,
Pg.Nos.1/4
W.P.No.38138 of 2024
Coimbatore vide representation dated 16.02.2024 and furnish details for having frozen the saving bank account.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's savings bank account bearing No.034201004867, R.S.Puram Branch, Coimbatore, by considering his representation dated 16.02.2024, and to provide details regarding the reasons for freezing the savings bank account.
2. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner's bank account with the third respondent was frozen specifically based on instructions from the fourth respondent, the Inspector of Police, SHO, Police Station - IT Park, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The first respondent is the Reserve Bank of India, and the second respondent is the Head Office of the third respondent Bank. Notably, except for the third respondent, where the petitioner holds an account and which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court, the other respondents, including the first, second, and fourth respondents, are outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
Pg.Nos.2/4
W.P.No.38138 of 2024
The freezing of the petitioner's account was done specifically based on instructions from the fourth respondent. The petitioner has not assigned any valid reason for seeking a writ against respondents 1, 2, and 4 under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law by approaching the appropriate forum.
25.11.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
r n s
Pg.Nos.3/4
W.P.No.38138 of 2024
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
r n s
To
W.P.No.38138 of 2024
12.12.2024
Pg.Nos.4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing a local bank to de-freeze an account based on instructions from out-of-jurisdiction police authorities when other respondents are outside terr
Ramkumar Ravichandran
Reserve Bank of India
ICICI Bank, Head Office
Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, R.S.Puram Branch
Inspector of Police, SHO Police Station - IT Park
P. VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
