Dismissed

M/s. Nmd Construction v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC6 Dec 2024WP/32871/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition seeking de-freezing of a bank account frozen due to alleged criminal offences. The Court held that freezing under Section 102 CrPC does not require notice, dismissed the natural justice claim, and noted the petitioner had approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for identical relief, making this petition dismissible on grounds of jurisdictio

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Nmd Construction Vs The State Bank of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶2

¶3

lN THE HIGH couRT^{roi rHe srATE oF TELANGANA Ar HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHUMIBHATTACHARYA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 32871 0F 2024}

¶8

Between:

¶9

' si.i. M/s. NMD Construction, Criinni suooaiarr,'ng;d^{Rep. by} i'oout st'years,^{its Proprietor, Netlapalli} occ' Business'^{lvlallikarjuna} Rio D'No -Yadav,1' FeOOisettipatti Village,^{Mydukuru, YSR Kadapa District'}

¶10

2.NetlapalliMallikarjunaYadav,sio'Chinna..Subbaiah,AgedaboutSl,years'-' o"c. business._ nio.b.uo.i, peddasettipalli Village. Mydukuru, YSR Kadapa District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

' The State iibtsgi;i'l"il.toi.tz-rli, Bank^{of lndia, Rep. by} sL ctassic, commercial^{its Chief Manager,} Area, KPHB^KukalP.ally colonv'^Branch Hyderabad-500072.

¶14

2.TheStationHouseOffice,NandyalTalukPoliceStationNandyalDistrict' Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

Union of lndia,^{Rep. by its UnderSecretary,M-inistrvof Finance' Department} of Financial serviceslieJvi;b;ep^{Buiiai69, 2nd Fioor' Parliament Street'} New Delhi^- 110⁰⁰¹

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus,^{declaring the actionof the Respondentsmore particularly} actionofthelstrespondentinissuingletterNo.SBl/10098/14,daled20-08-2024 andkeepingthePetitioner'sbankaccountinthenameofNMDConstructionwith Account No.40723904520^{in the RespondentNo'1branch ( i'e stateBank of} lndia, Kukatpally^{Branch, Hyderabad) on hold' in pursuance of the letter} addressedbytheRespondentNo'2on19lO5l2O24'isasillegal'arbitrary' violation of^{Principlesof Natural Justice and violationof Articles 14 and 21 of the}

¶18

constitution of lndia and set-aside or quash the same and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 td de-freeze the account in the name of NMD construction with Account No.40723904520 in the Respondent No.1 branch (State Bank of lndia, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad) of the petitioner forthwith.

¶19

IANO:1OF2 024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.'l and 2 to de-freeze the account of the petitioner,s which is in the name of NMD cohstruction with Account No.40723904520 in the Respondent No.1 branch (state Bank of lndia, Kukatpaily Branch, Hyderabad) forthwith, by suspending Letter No.SBl/1oog1l14, dated 20-08-2024 of the 1st respondent.

¶21

counserrorthePetitioner:sRrlaltllflI'-itf ilifia"lEB?l

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : -

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Gp FOR HOME

¶24

counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRr GADI pRAvEEN KUMAR, Dy.soL.cEN The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

't.i,

¶26

HON'BLE JUSTICE^{MOUSHUMI BIIAT-TACHARYA}

¶27

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.3287I of2024}

¶28

Counsel for the^{petitioners: N.Sharath ChandraReddy'} C-ounsel^{for ttre respondentNo 2: LearnedAssistant GovernmentPleader forHome'} ORDER:

¶29

The petitioners^{pray for de-freezingof a bankaccount in the} State Bank^{of India (SBI), Kuk4tpallyBranch' Hyderabad'}

¶30

The petitioners^{complainthat the balk account was frozen in} violation of^{the principlesof natural justicesince the petitionerswere} not given^{noticeof tl.e impugnedaction i'e'' fteezingof the bank} account.^{The petitioners seek a direction on the respondent} No.1/State^{Bank ofIndia (SBI)'KukatpallyBranch' and the} respondent^{No.2/Station House Officer' Nandyal Taluk'Andhra} Pradesh^{(SHO), to de-freez;-the bank accountwhich is in the name of} the petitioner^{No. 1.}

¶31

It is undisputed^{that the petitioner No'2 has alsoapproached} the High^{Court of AndhraPradeshat Amaravatiwith a writ petition} with identical^{prayers (w'P'No'26285of 20241 i'e'' for de-freezingof a} bank account^{in SBI, SME Branch, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District.}

¶32

Admittedly,^{the act of freezingof the bank accounts arise out of} the same^{alleged offences undersections4o3' 406' 4O9' 4la and 42O} of The Indian^{Penal Code, 1860 ('IPCJ'}

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seek to place emphasis on the petitioners' not being given notice of the impugned action. counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this Court on account of the bank account being situated at Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/SHO, Nandyal places an order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Praclesh at Amaravati in W.p.No.262g5 of 2024 by which the petitioner in that proceeding (the petitioner No.2 before this court) was given liberty to avail the alternative remedy under The Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 ior de-freezing of the bank account. counsel furthcr submits that the petitioners are not entifled to any notice before freezing of their bank accounts.

¶36

The issues which fall for decision are that of iurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and alternative remedy available to the petitioners.

¶37

As stated above, there is no doubt that the freezing of the 2 bank accounts of the petitioners, one bank account in the State of Telangala and other in the State of Andhra pradesh arise out of the same offence. The offence originated at Naldyal Taluk, Andhra Pradesh which would be evident from a complaint made in Nandyal Taluk against the petitioners. A case in cr.No. 16 of 2024 was reg$t/red against the petitioner under the provisions of the IpC. A

¶38

:t* ;{-'

¶39

¶40

Memo was^{also hled pursuantto the registration of crime beforethe} Judicial First^{Classlv1a gistrate, Nandyal (UFCMJby adding section} 409 of the^{IPC to the existing sections'The Investigating Offlcer} examined^{several witnesses and the entire information pertaining to} the case^{was informed by the respondent No'2 to the JFCM'} Nandyal.^{The fact of the source of the complaint and the continuation} of the Proceedings Pertarnrng^{to the comPlaint beingentirelY at} Nandyal^{Taluk, Andhra Pradesh would be the relevaltfactor and not} whether^{one of the bank accounts being located in Hyderabad'}

¶41

g. The decision^{of the Bombay High Court inVinoshlstmor} Ramachandran^{ValluuarVs' State of Maharashtrai wherebythe Full} Bench came^{to a specihc hnding that section1O2 of The Codeof} Criminal^{Procedure, 1973 ('Cr'P'C'')does not require any notice to be} issued^{to a personbeforeor simultaneouslywith the act of attaching} his/her^{bank account wouldbe relevant for the petitioners' argument} of not^{being given notice of fteezrtg of the bank accounts' The} contention^{of the petitionerwith regardto the violationof principles of} natural^{justice is hence rejected'}

¶42

;

¶43

10.^{Section 451 of the Cr'P'C' provides for orders for custodyand} disposal^{of property pendingtrial in certaincasesand contemplates} the criminal^{Court to make suchorder as it thinks ht for proper} custody^{of suchproperty pending conclusionof enquiryor trial'The} Court is^{empowered to pass appropriate ordersdependingon the}

¶44

r2o11 [t) MwN (Cr') 497^{(FB) (Bom)}

I .,

''t

nature of property or where the Court deems it expedient to sell or dispose of the^property. In the present case the JFCM, Nandyal is the jurisdictional court under section rzz of the cr.p.c. The petitioners have not^{shown any plausible} expranation as to why the petitioners have^{not approached the jurisdictional} court for rerief with regard to the^{bank accounts.}

¶49

I^l. The issue of^{jurisdiction,} alternative remedy as well as the argument^{on vioiation} of the principles of natural justice are hence +gainst^{the petitioners. Most importantly,the petitioners} have already approached^{the High court of Andhra pradesh} seeking identical relief. dhere is nothing on record to show that the petitioners cannot proceed ffifore^{that court or before the jurisdictionalMagistrate for the relief} t ''+1 ffich^{the petitionershave sought from} this Court.

¶50

1r2.^W.P.No.32871 of 2023, aiong with ail connected applications, is

¶51

cordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

sD/-A.V.S.^PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 One CC^{to SRI GUNDARAM MANOJ GOUD' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶58

2 Two CCs^{to GP FORHOME, High Courtforthe State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

3 3,t?3:,lRP#1ft?:f"TY:ElJ:HyllJBSl'ilL:ot3'J'3t?"nu"'orrndia)'

¶60

4 Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212024

ORDER

IHF- s14 Ie
(
,'}
ri)
1 I 0[c 20zt
za
\ i
{+
t a'E sn.TCr iP-o

¶69

WP.No.32871 ot 2024

¶70

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

i I i

¶72

,)"r

M/s. Nmd Construction v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s. Nmd Construction v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kota konda Pitchaiah Vs The Union of India

Arelli Sailaja Vs Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

Ahmed Akram Abbas Vs The Union Government Of India

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher Vs The State of Telangana

Busa Komal Vs The State of Telangana