Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13506 (DEL)

RUPESH KUMAR YADAV v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK

W.P.(C)/9634/2026 · 2026-07-21

Jasmeet Singh

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9634/2026 RUPESH KUMAR YADAV ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Singh Antil, Ms. Palak Sirohi, Advs. versus AU SMALL FINANCE BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Devashish Marwah, Mr. Gurdeep Singh and Ms. K. Natasha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 21.07.2026 CM APPL. 44938/2026 Exemptions granted, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 9634/2026 1. Mr. Marwah, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent bank states that the disputed amount for placing the bank account of the petitioner on freeze is Rs. 100/-. 2. Since the disputed amount is only Rs. 100/-, I am of the view that the entire account of the petitioner cannot be freezed. 3. Freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for the petitioner herein as the same happens to be a daily wage labour utilizing his income for meeting daily household expenses. An action of blanket freeze will result in extreme hardships and inconvenience to the petitioner hampering livelihood of his family. The respondent bank 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 30/07/2026 at 15:36:36 cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without any application of mind. 4. For the said reasons, the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The impugned action is without due application of mind as an indiscriminate blanket freeze has been imposed on the account of the petitioner for an alleged suspicious entry of a meagre amount. 5. Subject to the respondent bank marking a lien on Rs. 100/-, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate his savings bank account No. 2401245564153212. 6. In view of the Order passed, Mr. Antil, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not press the present petition. 7. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. 8. The document handed over in Court today is taken on record. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 21, 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 30/07/2026 at 15:36:36