Shubham Gupta v. Union Of India & ORS.

$~4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2420/2026 SHUBHAM GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:

Adv, Shyam D Nandan, Adv, Rohit Bohra, Adv, Nandana Menon versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Mr. Sumit Ranjan, GP, Ms. Sonali Modi, Adv., Mr. Mukul Dev, Adv. for R1 Mr. Prashant Tripathi, Adv for R3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 27.02.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- "I.

Issue an appropriate writ/ order/ directing the Respondents to remove the debit freeze imposed on the bank account of the Petitioner bearing no.

10049171512 maintained with the Respondent No.3 Bank; and II. Pass an appropriate writ, order and direction to the Respondents to frame guidelines and rules for freezing/ attachment of bank accounts;..."

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a small businessman who earns his living by selling vegetables and paint and is reliant on his bank account to maintain himself and his family. 3.

The respondent No.3 has put his account on debit freeze which has resulted in total chaos in the petitioner's financial workings. 4.

Mr. Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Annexure 'A' with the petition which shows that respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the respondent No. 3. The relevant annexure is reproduced as under:- 5.

Based on the same, the respondent No. 3 issued an email on 20.01.2026 which reads as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

6.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 7.

The language of the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 is clear in its terms and only permits a lien of Rs. 810.57/- on the account of the petitioner. This means that only the funds to the extent of lien-marked on it cannot be withdrawn until the lien is removed.

8.

There is no restriction on the petitioner operating the balance amount and there is no other reason explained or argued in Court on behalf of the respondent No. 3, substantiating the said action except this message from the respondent No. 2.

9.

I am satisfied that the communication made by the respondent No. 2 only directs maintaining a lien of Rs. 810.57/- on the account of the petitioner and debit freezing the entire account is exceeding the scope of the directions issued by the respondent No. 2.

10. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the account No.

10049171512 of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No.3 bank is directed to be defreezed except to extent of the lien placed on it of Rs. 810.57/-.

11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith pending applications, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 27, 2026 / (MS) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.