18.08.2026 Sl. no. DL 16 Court No. 25 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 28680 of 2025 In the matter of : HOLIDAY HUB PVT. LTD. … Petitioner VS. BANK OF BARODA & ORS. … Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Sayantan Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee Mr. Sohail Ahmed Ansari … Advocates For the Respondent / Bank of Baroda : Mr. Dipanjan Datta Mr. Rahul Sarkar Ms. Dipika Sarkar Ms. Esha Basak … Advocates For the Respondent / RBI : Mr. Debabrata Das Mr. Amar Agarwal Mr. A. Sarkar Mr. Pratik Acharjee … Advocates 1. Report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent / bank be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent/bank to provide the break-up of the deduction of how the respondent / bank arrived the calculation of Rs.75,85,161.65/- and also prayed for a direction for defreezing the bank Page 2 account of the petitioner and to lift the lien mark on the account of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is maintaining Current Account bearing no.32210200000537 with the respondent/bank. He further submits that in the month of August, 2025, the bank has arbitrarily frozen the bank account of the petitioner without assigning any reason. He also submits that the respondent/bank had deducted the huge amount of money to the tune of Rs.75,85,161.65/- as MDR charges without giving any break-up to the petitioner as on 29th August, 2025 and frozen the account lying with Rs.32,65,575.09/-. 4. From the report filed by the respondent/bank, as called for by this Court, it appears that at the time of onboarding of the merchant facilities, the petitioner has represented the bank that it will maintain the minimum average balance of Rs.30 crores with the bank and expected maximum transaction limit would not exceed Rs.100 crores. It is further case of the respondent/bank that since February, 2025, the petitioner was enjoying MDR charges at the concessional rate of 0.90 per cent whereas the cost incurred by the bank towards the transactions was approximately 2.70 per cent. Learned counsel for the Page 3 respondent/bank submits that during the half yearly review of the MDR charges conducted by the bank, it was observed that the petitioner has failed to maintain the committed minimum average balance of Rs.30 crores as assured by the petitioner in their account and it was further observed that the petitioner had exceeded the expected maximum limit of Rs.100 crores and accordingly, the bank has frozen the bank account of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank has arbitrarily frozen the account on the aforementioned allegations as there is no agreement with the petitioner and the bank that if the petitioner exceeds the expected maximum limit and will not keep the balance amount of Rs.30 crores as agreed by the petitioner, the bank will freeze the account of the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record. 7. Admittedly, there is no condition in the agreement that the bank can freeze the account of the petitioner if the petitioner will not keep the minimum average balance of Rs.30 crores or will exceed the expected maximum limit of Rs.100 crores. It is found from the records that Page 4 the bank has also issued a notice, however, in the said notice it is only mentioned that the account of the petitioner has been placed under negative list indicating that the bank is incurring loss. 8. Considering the above, this Court finds that the act of the bank while freezing the account of the petitioner on the aforesaid allegations is contrary to the law and there is no condition in the agreement. 9. Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed of by directing the respondent/bank to immediately defreeze the bank account of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to operate the said bank account. 10. It is, however, made clear that though this Court has directed the bank to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner, but the bank will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the petitioner in accordance with law if the bank finds that the petitioner has violated any terms and conditions of the bank. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Page 5 13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Krishna Rao, J. )