D.Manivannan Vs Icici Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

D.Manivannan Vs Icici Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions only: petitioner to file a detailed representation before the 1st respondent, who must consider it on merits and in accordance with law within 8 weeks of receipt; writ petition disposed of with no cost. The monetary reversal of Rs. 25,52,252.20 sought in the prayer was not granted by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were obliged to act on the petitioner's e-mail dated 24.04.2023 seeking disclosure of the reasons for freezing his current account bearing no. 189705500077, and whether that mail alone sufficed for the Court to consider the request. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon perusal, the Court found that the petitioner's e-mail dated 24.04.2023 was not sufficient to consider his request for disclosure of the reasons for freezing his current account.

Ratio / Principle

In place of acting on the earlier mail, the Court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the 1st respondent.

Key takeaways

The 1st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's detailed representation on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Single Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy J.), 24-04-2026 - WP No. 19598 of 2023 - Disposed of, no cost. The petitioner, D. Manivannan, sole proprietor of M/s. D. Manivannan and Co., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent (ICICI Bank) to disclose the reasons for freezing his current account no. 189705500077 on 28.04.2023 despite an approval endorsed in the Bank's own mail dated 24.04.2023 at 4.35 PM, to reverse an abrupt debit of Rs. 25,52,252.20 made at 12.01 pm, and to follow the guidelines of the 5th respondent (Reserve Bank of India); his earlier mail dated 24.04.2023 seeking such disclosure went unanswered. Holding that the petitioner's mail dated 24.04.2023 was not sufficient to consider his request, the Court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the 1st respondent, which shall consider it on merits and in accordance with law within 8 weeks of receipt. No cases were cited and no monetary relief was granted.

WP No. 19598 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 19598 of 2023

D.Manivannan

S/o. K. Dharmalingam, Sole Propritor Of M/s. D. Manivannan And Co., Having Office At T/d. 95/t/c.39, Anna Fruit Market, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 092.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

Icici Bank Rep. By Ts Branch Manager, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

2.Vignesh, Relationship Manager, Icici Bank, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

3.Anand Ramanathan, Icici Bank, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

4.The Deputy General Manager, Icici Bank, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

5.The Reserve Bank Of India, Fort Glacis, No. 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

Respondent(s)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 19598 of 2023

PRAYER

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st Respondent to disclose the reasons for freeze the current account bearing no. 189705500077 of the sole proprietor, concern M/s. D. Manivannan and Co. on 28.04.2023 despite after endorsing an approval in their mail dated 24.04.2023 at 4.35 PM and consequently deduct the amount rs. 25, 52,252.20 at 12.01 pm abruptly, which is an illegal and against the law, further the 1st respondent directed to reverse back those amount to the petitioner and to follow the guidelines of the 5th respondent

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sri Ram Sanjay, for Mr.M.Sathya Kumar

For Respondent(s): No Appearance

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's mail dated 24.04.2023.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case,

the petitioner has sent a mail, requesting the respondents to disclose the reasons for freezing the current account of the petitioner. However, the said mail was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the entire materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 19598 of 2023

In the case on hand, petitioner has sent a mail, requesting the respondents to disclose the reasons for freezing his current account. Upon perusal, it appears that the petitioner's mail dated 24.04.2023 will not be sufficient to consider the request made by him.

In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the 1^st respondent. In such case, the 1^st respondent shall consider the said representation, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the same.

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

24-04-2026

nsa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

To

1.Icici Bank Rep. By Ts Branch Manager, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

2.Vignesh, Relationship Manager, Icici Bank,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 19598 of 2023

No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

3.Anand Ramanathan, Icici Bank, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

4.The Deputy General Manager, Icici Bank, No. 231, Jawarlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

5.The Reserve Bank Of India, Fort Glacis, No. 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 19598 of 2023

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

nsa

WP No. 19598 of 2023

24-04-2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis