Juveria Nazneen S v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28/10/2024 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Writ Petition No .13556 of 2024 a n d W.M.P.No.14713 of 2024 Juveria Nazneen ...
Petitioner Vs
1. Union of India rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi 110 001.
2. IDFC First Bank rep. By its Bank Manager Perambur Branch Ground Floor No.24 SRP Koil Street Agaram Junction, Perambur Chennai 600 082.
3. The Inspector-cum-Station House Officer Poojappura Police Station Poojappura Main Road Thiruvananthapuram Kerala 695 012.
4. Women Police Constable (WPC) Rajula Gujarat 365 560.
...
Respondents Page No:1/4
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to de freeze the petitioner's Bank Account No.10169855235 maintained in the second respondent Bank within the time frame fixed by this Court. For petitioner ...
M/s.A.Leeban For respondents ...
Mr.K.Ramamoorthy, CGSC for R.1 Mr.S.K.Mariyappan for R.2 No appearance for R.R.3 and 4 - - - - -
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to de freeze the petitioner's Bank Account No.10169855235 maintained in the second respondent Bank.
2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- Page No:2/4
The petitioner had obtained educational loan from the second respondent Bank and the same was credited to the petitioner's bank account. To his shock and surprise, the petitioner's entire bank account was freezed. However, the disputed amount is Rs.4,400/-, as per the complaint from the first respondent, however, the respondents have blocked the entire account which has Rs.14,23,812/-. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to de-freeze the bank account.
3. Heard M/s.A.Leeban, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Ramamoorthy, Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.K.Mariyappan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. There is no appearance for the third and fourth respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submited that the transaction was not done by the petitioner and this would itself being enough to show that the petitioner has never been a part of that transaction. Page No:3/4
M.DHANDAPANI,J mvs.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that except the disputed transferred amount, petitioner's account was defreezed and the petitioner is entitled to operate the account.
6. Recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28/10/2024 mvs.
Index : Yes / No Writ Petition No.13556 of 2024 Page No:4/4