Lata Gupta And ANR. v. Hdfc Bank Ltd & ANR.

$~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5159/2026 & CM APPL. 25257/2026 LATA GUPTA AND ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. C.M. Sharma, Adv.

versus HDFC BANK LTD & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Shivang Singh and Mr. Pulin Kumar, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 17.04.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- "a. Direct the Respondents to de-freeze the bank accounts of petitioner.

b. Direct the Respondent not to freeze the bank accounts of petitioner without following Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and without having any orders from the competent authority.

c. Direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20 Lakh to compensate the petitioner."

2.

The brief facts are that the petitioner is running a proprietorship business under the name of Shri Sanwaliyan Seth Trading Co. and has two accounts (account no. 16721870001150 being saving bank account and a current account bearing no. 50200105667466). Both the accounts of the petitioner has been put on debit freeze vide e-mail dated 07.03.2026 on the ground of some activities not matching with the usual transaction pattern. 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 24/04/2026 at 13:26:41

3.

Mr. Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent bank and states that the account of the petitioner was put on freeze as the petitioner's husband had transferred some amount in the petitioner's saving account. 4.

The account of the petitioner's husband was also put on freeze but vide Order dated 23.03.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 3050/2026, the account of the petitioner's husband was permitted to be operated subject to putting a lien of Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 1226/- (total of Rs. 20,226/-) being the disputed amount, 5.

Since the account of petitioner's husband has been permitted to be operational, I am of the view that the petition needs to be allowed. 6.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the debit freeze stands removed from the accounts of the petitioners. 7.

The petitioner also seeks compensation for the aforesaid action. However, I am of the view that petitioner has not shown any loss caused to the petitioner in the present petition. Accordingly, the prayer for compensation is rejected.

8.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending applications, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 17, 2026/NG 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 24/04/2026 at 13:26:41