Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mujeeb Rahman V.a vs the Bank Manager, the State Bank of India

Mujeeb Rahman V.a vs The Bank Manager, the State Bank of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 15, 2024
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1320277

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/43094/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mujeeb Rahman V.a

Respondent

The Bank Manager, the State Bank of India

Excerpt

.....required to be kept frozen or held in lien, then the respondent bank will confine the freeze/liento such an extent and allow the petitioner/account holder to deal with his account and transact therein beyond thatlimit.(c) on the contrary, if no information isreceived from the police authority/investigating officer within a period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent bank, then they will allow the petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit -6- freeze requisition, subject to any further information to be received from the police authority/investigating officer in future.(d) as an alternative, if the response from the police authority/investigating officer is that the entire account be frozenfor any reason that is mentioned therein, then the bank will inform the petitioner/account holder accordingly andcontinue the freeze in such a manner for a further period of eight months thereafter.(e) if, after a period of eight months, the requisition made by the police authorities - either to a particular sum or the full amount in the account of the accountholder - is not withdrawn, then the petitioner/account holder will be at full liberty to approach this court again; for-7- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to him to be impelled in future. sd/- devan ramachandran judge akv -8- appendix of wp(c) 43094/2023 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 a true photocopy of the 1st page of account statement of the petitioner issued by the 1st respondent in respect of account no: 00000020356587209 exhibit p2 a true photo copy of complaint received by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 PETITIONER: MUJEEB RAHMAN V.A, AGED 47 YEARS, CHEEDIKUNNUMMAL(H), KODUVALLY P.O, KOZHIKODE(DIST.), PIN - 673572. BY ADVS. V.S.MANSOOR AKHIL BINOY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE BANK MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA KODUVALLY BRANCH, CALICUT WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE(DIST.), PIN - 673578. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANCHERIAL POLICE STATION, TELANGANA STATE, PIN - 380008. BY ADV. SRI. GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

In matters relating to the freezing of accounts, this Court has already delivered a

judgment in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of

India [2024 (1) KLT 826].

2. In the aforesaid judgment, certain

directions were issued to the respective Banks, as also the Police Authorities, to continue the freeze for a certain period of time and only to the extent which was requisitioned by the Police.

3. However, what makes this case

different from the one that was considered by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, is that the requisitions received by the Bank are stated to contain no particular amount, but seek a complete and blanket debit freeze of -3- all the amounts in credit therein.

4. The legal issues and the imperatives

involved have already been discussed by this Court in Dr.Sajeer (supra). A blanket freeze indefinitely, and without any period of time being stipulated by the Police, is certainly deleterious, not only to the account holders but also to the system as a whole; and the view in this regard of this Court is clearly reflected in Dr.Sajeer (supra).

5. However, since the Bank is now

incapacitated from allowing the operation of the account of the petitioner because the requisition issued to them do not contain any particular amount, I am certain that this Court is enjoined to deal with this matter, sufficiently protecting both the investigation, as also the account holders. I -4- am persuaded to such course because, the blanket freeze of an account, if it is not imperatively necessary, will be an affront to

the    rights      of       the         account     holders     and
impinges        even    their        right     to       livelihood,
since,     in    this       era,        everyone     relies     upon

banking transactions as the primary source. In the afore circumstances, following Dr.Sajeer (supra), I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(a) The respondent Bank is directed to

immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority and seek the amount which is required to be kept in freeze or held in lien in the account of the petitioner. This shall be done by the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. -5-

(b) In the event that the Investigating Officer/Police Authority responds to the afore requisition and mentions a particular amount, as being the sum that is required to be kept frozen or held in lien, then the respondent Bank will confine the freeze/lien

to     such        an     extent        and         allow         the
petitioner/account           holder     to    deal        with    his
account      and    transact         therein       beyond        that

limit.

(c) On the contrary, if no information is

received from the Police Authority/Investigating officer within a period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent Bank, then they will allow the petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit -6- freeze requisition, subject to any further information to be received from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer in future.

(d) As an alternative, if the response from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer is that the entire account be frozen

for    any    reason     that     is    mentioned         therein,
then         the        Bank       will            inform        the
petitioner/account             holder      accordingly           and

continue the freeze in such a manner for a further period of eight months thereafter.

(e) If, after a period of eight months, the requisition made by the Police Authorities - either to a particular sum or the full amount in the account of the account

holder       -     is    not      withdrawn,             then   the
petitioner/account             holder   will        be    at    full
liberty      to    approach      this     Court      again;      for

-7- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to him to be impelled in future. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv -8- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43094/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT NO: 00000020356587209 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial