$~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010360682026 + W.P.(C) 11189/2026 MANTOSH MANDAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Subham Jain, Mr. Prarthna Singh, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amish Tandon and Ms. Akanksha Mishra, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Ashish Kumar, Standing Counsel for Kotak Mahindra Bank, with Ms. Khushboo Agarwal, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 14.09.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- “i. issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents, and in particular Respondent No. 2, to forthwith remove the debit freeze upon, and defreeze, the Petitioner’s savings bank account No. 7751370987 maintained at Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., South Extension Part-II Branch, New Delhi; ii. in the alternative, direct that only the alleged disputed amount of ₹2,728/- be kept under lien and the remaining balance in the said account be released for normal operation by the Petitioner; iii. direct Respondent No. 2 to furnish to the Petitioner copies 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 19/09/2026 at 11:50:51 of the communication(s)/instruction(s) pursuant to which the debit freeze has been imposed, together with the particulars of the law enforcement agency concerned, the complaint/NCRP acknowledgement number, and the details of the investigating officer, with liberty to the Petitioner to implead the said agency upon disclosure; and…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s savings bank account bearing No. 7751370987 has been frozen by the respondent No. 2 bank due to a disputed transaction of Rs. 2,728/-, from an entity described as ‘Tradekune’, which is wholly unknown to the petitioner. The entire bank account of the petitioner has been put on freeze. 3. Mr. Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, states that since the petitioner’s account is in the nature of a savings bank account, it needs to be converted to a current bank account and the petitioner needs to complete the formalities for the same. 4. Since the petitioner is not interested in maintaining the account with respondent No. 2, it is directed that the petitioner shall approach the respondent No. 2, complete the formalities and the entire amount lying to the credit of the petitioner, shall be given to the petitioner in the form of a demand draft, except for the disputed amount of Rs. 2,728/-. 5. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2026/sp 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 19/09/2026 at 11:50:51