Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11828 (DEL)

SWASTIKPAY TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

W.P.(C)/8774/2026 · 2026-07-10

Jasmeet Singh

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8774/2026 & CM APPL. 41182/2026 SWASTIKPAY TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirag Sharma, Adv versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Santosh Kumar Rout, SC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 10.07.2026 CM APPL. 41181/2026 and CM APPL. 41183/2026 Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 8774/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, thereby quashing and setting aside the action of the Respondent No. 3 in directing the freezing of the Petitioner's bank account maintained with Respondent No. 2; b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to forthwith revoke the complete debit freeze imposed upon the Petitioner's bank account maintained with Respondent No. 2 State This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:56 Bank of India, Rajdhani Enclave Branch, Delhi, and restore its normal banking operations forthwith. c. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 3 to furnish to the Petitioner copies of the Complaint, the FIR, if any, the communication issued to Respondent No. 2 directing the freezing of the Petitioner's bank account, the statutory order authorising such freezing, and all other documents forming the basis of the impugned action, in order to enable the Petitioner to effectively protect its legal rights. ...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of providing financial technology solutions. The petitioner maintains an account bearing No. 44659502197 with respondent No. 2 at Rajdhani Enclave Branch, Delhi. 3. The account of the petitioner has been frozen presumably on an e-mail from respondent No. 3, i.e., Arunachal Pradesh Police in relation to a complaint under investigation. Hence the present petition. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he has not received any notice or details of complaint from the Arunachal Pradesh. 5. Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel has handed over the complaint details which shows that the disputed amount in question is Rs. 46,700. 6. For a disputed sum of Rs. 46,700, the entire account of the petitioner has been frozen. 7. I am of the view that freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for individual/commercial entities in their smooth functioning and the same might result in commercial death of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:56 petitioner. The respondent bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without complying with the principles of natural justice and without any application of mind. 8. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is not only in clear violation of the principles of natural justice but also disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power. 9. In this view, subject to a lien of Rs 46,700, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account No. 44659502197 with respondent No. 2 at Rajdhani Enclave Branch, Delhi. 10. The petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate action under the SoP framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for removing the lien of Rs 46,700 as well. 11. In view of the Order passed, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not press the other prayers in the petition and the petition is disposed of accordingly. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 10, 2026/AS This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 12:02:56