Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 135301 (ALL)

M/S DANIEL INTERNATIONAL FIRM THRU. ITS PROPERIETOR GUNJAN v. UNION OF INDIA THRU. SECRETARY ,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI AND 11 OTHERS

CRLP/3562/2025 · 2025-05-02

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Vivek Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25525-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3562 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Daniel International Firm Thru. Its Properietor Gunjan Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secretary ,Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Ujjawal Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri R.K.Singh and Sri Palash Srivastava, Advocates, who have filed their Powers today on behalf of opposite party nos.6 and 7 respectively, which are taken on record. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding direct the opposite parties to forthwith allow the functioning/transaction of the CC Account No.60316170230 of the petitioner, which is opened in the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Mau, Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow as well as the Current Account No.32852863142 in State Bank of India, Utaratia Branch, Lucknow, which is opened in the name of husband of the petitioner namely Mukul, in accordance with law after completing all the required formalities. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding direct the opposite parties to take appropriate decision on the request and representation of the petitioner regarding holding of the money in Bank Accounts of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.6-Bank Of Maharashtra states that the amount in dispute is Rs.47,000/-. 4. In view thereof, bank is permitted to keep the amount of Rs.47,000/- under seize and permit the petitioner to operate its bank account other than the amount of Rs.47,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India states that petitioner's firm does not have any account with the State Bank of India and only the husband of proprietor of petitioner's firm is having an account with the State Bank of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be filing a separate petition with regard to the account holder. 7. With the aforesaid, present writ petition stands disposed of. . [Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench