CHITTRIGUNGA FL (OFF) SHOP v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
WPA/9920/2026 · 2026-08-13
Krishna Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 32224 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 32224 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
S/L 3
13.08.2026 Court. No. 25
suvayan
WPA 9920 of 2026
Chittrigunga FL (Off) Shop Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.
Mr. Partha Chakraborty
Ms. Debanjali Payra
Ms. Reshmi Nehar
…for the petitioner.
Mr. Debabrata Das
Mr. A. Sarkar
Mr. Pratik Acharjee …for R.B.I.
Ms. Sweta Mukherjee …for H.D.F.C.
1. The affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the bank for defreeze the bank account of the petitioner being Current Account no. 50200066009295 of HDFC Bank at Budge Budge Branch.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a business and maintaining the current account with the HDFC Bank. All of a sudden on January 26, 2026, the petitioner has received a message from the HDFC Bank that the account of the petitioner is blocked. Immediately, the petitioner has requested the bank for reason of the blocking of the account and accordingly, the bank has informed the petitioner that the bank has received a complaint with regard to the account of the petitioner and as per the report of Investigating
2 Officer, Mahnar SHO, Vaishali, District – Bihar, the bank has blocked the account of the petitioner.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that altogether the disputed amount is not more than Rs. 5,000/-. He submits that there is disputed amounts of Rs. 125/-, Rs. 345/-, Rs. 1519/-, Rs. 414/- and Rs. 2040/-. He submits that because of the said disputed amount of Rs. 5,000/- the bank has freezed the total account of the petitioner for the last eight months due to which the petitioner is not in a position to do the business and to operate the bank account for which the business of the petitioner is suffering very badly.
5.
Learned counsel for the bank submits that the bank has received the complaint with regard to the above transactions and accordingly, bank has blocked the account of the petitioner by informing the same to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties perused the materials on record.
7. In the month of January, 2026 the bank has blocked account of the petitioner. After the blocking of the account, the petitioner has requested the bank for defreezing the account but the bank has not considered the request of the petitioner.
8. The total disputed amount is Rs. 5,000/-. In terms of the
order passed by this Court, the petitioner has also made the investigating agency as party respondent. Notice has been sent to the investigating agency but in spite of the service of the notice upon the investigating agency none has appeared in the matter.
3
9. This Court finds that neither the investigating agency nor the bank authority have produced any document that the petitioner is involved in any of the criminal case. The bank as well as the investigating agency has also not produced any order before this Court to establish that they have obtained any order from the competent Court for freezing of the account. It is true that since the month of January, 2026 the account of the petitioner is blocked, due to which the petitioner is not able to operate the said account. Though the account of the petitioner is a current account and the disputed amount is only Rs. 5,000/-.
10. Considering the above, this Court finds that the investigating agency in spite of receipt of the notice has not come forward and bank has also not received any further information from the investigating agency whether the account is required for further investigation.
11. Considering the above, this Court finds that the only disputed amount of Rs. 4,443/- and as such the bank is
directed to keep the disputed amount in lien and the petitioner is allowed to operate the said bank account. It is further made clear that, in the meantime, if the bank considers that the account of the petitioner is required for further investigation by the investigating agency, the bank can act in accordance with law.
12. WPA 9920 of 2026 is disposed of.
13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)