Disposed¶6

M/S Maa Sulia Filling Station, Nayagarh v. Union of India

Orissa HC10 Nov 2025WP(C)/22307/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC 2025 writ petition on bank-account freeze/defreezing; account flagged for suspicious transaction; customer seeks access to frozen funds; Court disposes of W.P.(C) without entering merits, directing the Bank to allow transactions conditional on a Rs.6,00,000/- hold or an indemnity bond; parties: M/s. Maa Sulia Filling Station v. Union of India & Ors. (incl. Bank); keywords: W.P.(C), defreeze, freeze, hold amount, indemnity bond, suspicious transaction, bank customer grievance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.2/Bank to permit the Petitioner to transact through his account, subject to keeping Rs.6,00,000/- on hold therein or furnishing an indemnity bond for that amount; the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. ¶6

M/S Maa Sulia Filling Station, Nayagarh Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22307 of 2025

¶2

M/s. Maa Sulia Filling ..... Petitioner Station Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

….. Union of India & Ors. Opposite Parties Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P No.1 Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate for O.P No.2

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 10.11.2025

¶7

Order No.

¶8

¶9

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶10

2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming himself to be the customer of the Opposite Party No.2/Bank, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party No.2/Bank for defreezing his Bank Account in question which is freezed due to some suspicious transaction.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to freezing of the above noted Bank account of the Petitioner without his fault, the Petitioner is unable to make necessary transaction through the said account. He,

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Page 1 of 2.

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Dec-2025 15:20:24

¶15

accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this Writ Petition.

¶16

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/Bank, on instruction, submits that the Petitioner in order to redress his grievance should have approached the concerned authority of the Opposite Party No.2/ Bank at the threshold of the dispute.

¶17

5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the Opposite Party No.2/Bank to permit the Petitioner to make necessary transaction through the above noted Bank account after keeping a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in hold in the said account or an indemnity bond for the said amount from the Petitioner.

¶18

6. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶20

Gitanjali

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 2.

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Dec-2025 15:20:24