Disposed

Sananda Sahu v. Indian Overseas Bank

Orissa HC22 Jul 2022WP(C)/20770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a petitioner challenged a bank's freezing of a matured term deposit. The Court directed the bank to seek the status of a 2013 freezing request from the Vigilance Department, instructing that the deposit be allowed unless the request was maintained.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the bank to communicate with the Vigilance Department and clarify the status of the account freezing request.

Sananda Sahu Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.20770 Of 2019 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Sananda Sahu

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank, BBSR and another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Balakrishna Rao, Advocate

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

ORDER

22.07.2022

1. Ms. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of

¶15

petitioner and submits, her client has a term deposit account, already matured, with opposite party-bank. The bank did not allow her client to withdraw the proceeds. From counter filed on behalf of the bank

¶16

her client came to know that the bank had received, communication dated 29^th June, 2013 from office of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur Division requiring freezing of the account. The bank by its communication dated 6^th December, 2019 informed the Enforcement Directorate that petitioner, along with one named

¶17

accused in the investigation, had made the term deposit, matured on 7^th August, 2015.

¶18

Page 1 of 1

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

2. She submits, her client obtained and has disclosed provisional attachment order dated 30^th March, 2019 issued by the Directorate. She refers to Table-B in schedule annexed (Moveable Properties:-FDs and TDs) to submit, the term deposit of her client is not mentioned therein. She submits, there be direction upon the bank to enquire on present position of the Directorate on the request for freezing her client’s term deposit, in light of same not having been made subject of

¶21

the provisional attachment order. She submits further, the authorities

¶22

also be directed to act expeditiously.

¶23

3. Mr. Rao, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite parties (bank). He submits, his client has been complying with the requirements made by the Vigilance Department.

¶24

4. The bank is directed to communicate this order to office of the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur and seek response regarding its request made by letter dated 29^th June, 2013. The office is expected to respond on whether the request for freezing is to be maintained or the same stand discharged. In event said request is required to be maintained, the bank will forthwith inform petitioner, otherwise allow dealing with the term deposit.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Arindam Sinha)

¶29

Judge

¶30

Sks

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sananda Sahu v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sananda Sahu v. Indian Overseas Bank

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

Binod Ku.Choudhury Vs State

State of Orissa Vs M/S.B.Engineers and Builders Ltd.

Sun and Sand Propertie Vs Puri Municpality

Octavo Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Secy. Cum Commnr., Dept. of Panchayat Raj and Drinking Water

Dr. Pabitra Mohan Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Nilachal Seva Pratisthan, Puri Vs State of Odisha