09-04-2025 Item No.13 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.6099 of 2025 Ravindra Pratap Singh & Anr. -vs- Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, sr. adv. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, adv. Mr. Chayan Gupta, adv. Mr. Sharnak Mitra, adv. Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, adv. ...for petitioners Ms. Suchismita Ghosh, adv. …for Reserve Bank Mr. Debtanay Banerjee, adv. Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, adv. Mr. Vishal Singh, adv. …for Axis Bank Mr. Syamantak Banerjee, adv. Mr. P.K. Dutt, adv. Mr. S.K. Dutt, adv. …for NSDL Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, sr. adv. Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, adv. Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, adv. Ms. Bhavesh Garodia, adv.…for proforma respondt. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the act on the part of Axis Bank in freezing their bank account and demat account relying on a complaint lodged by the erstwhile directors of Laneseda Agents Limited in May 2021. The bank also took note of the recording in the official website of the Registrar of Companies on June 8, 2021 mentioning that there was a management dispute between the directors of the company. 2. The Registrar of Companies thereafter demarked the recording of management dispute from its official website in July 2021. After removal of the said remark, the petitioners approached the bank with a request to defreeze the subject accounts, but the bank refused to act. 3. It appears that the erstwhile directors approached the National Company Law Tribunal by filing CP No.114/KB/2021 which stood finally disposed of vide judgment passed by the referral Bench of the National Law Company Tribunal at Ahmedabad by dismissing the company petitions. The intervening application filed by Axis Bank in the said company petition also stood dismissed. 4. It has been brought to the notice of the court that an appeal has been preferred before the appellate tribunal, but no order of stay has been passed even after two years of filing the appeal. 5. Prayer has been made by the petitioners seeking a direction upon Axis Bank to defreeze the bank account. 6. Learned counsel representing Axis Bank raises a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been submitted that writ petition against Axis Bank which is a private bank will not be maintainable. 7. Learned senior advocate representing the proforma respondent submits that the proforma respondent is the 100% shareholder of the petitioner-company. The proforma respondent is ready and willing to submit a bond of indemnity before the bank in respect of the bank account and the demat account. 8. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the records it appears that admittedly, as on date, there is no order passed by any judicial forum 2 directing or permitting the bank to freeze the bank account and the demat account of the petitioners. On the contrary, the remark by the Registrar of Companies recording management dispute relying on which Axis Bank froze the accounts of the petitioners, has been removed. 9. The intervening application filed by the bank before NCLT also stood dismissed. The same implies that as on date, there is no legal impediment on the part of the bank, to defreeze the accounts of the petitioners. 10. The submission of the bank that the writ petition will not be maintainable cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The petitioners have got a banking relationship with the Axis Bank and the right to business directly involves banking transactions. If the bank account and demat account of the petitioners are frozen by Axis Bank unilaterally without any cogent reason, the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on business gets infringed. 11. As the proforma respondent has accepted to provide an indemnity bond in respect of the accounts held in Axis Bank, accordingly, the bank is directed to defreeze the bank account and the demat account of the petitioners subject to depositing an indemnity bond as per the norms of the bank either by the petitioners or by the proforma respondent. 12. The formalities for submitting the indemnity bond shall be made known to the petitioner within a week from the date of communication of this order. Steps thereafter shall be taken in the matter at the earliest but positively within four 3 weeks from the date of submitting the indemnity bond. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of. 14. As regards the prayer of the petitioners claiming damages from the bank for not permitting the petitioners to operate the bank account thereby causing loss to the company, it will be open for the petitioners to approach the competent forum for remedy. 15. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 16. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J] 4