Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Benevolent Trust vs Uco Bank Limited And Another on 29 February, 2024

29th February,
 2024
 (AK)
 15

                                      W.P.A 2304 of 2024

                      All India UCO Bank Officers Federation Welfare and
                                      Benevolent Trust
                                             Vs.
                                 UCO Bank Limited and another


                              Mr. Harsha Raj
                              Mr. Arnab Dutt
                              Mrs. Labani Dey
                                                            ...for the petitioner.

                              Mr. Rahul Sarkar
                              Ms. Dipika Sarkar
                              Ms. Shreya Deashi
                                                       ...for the respondents.

1. An adjournment is sought by learned counsel for the Bank after learned counsel for the petitioner concludes his arguments.

2. The petitioner is a trust comprised of the UCO Bank Officers.

3. The trust has been formed for the Welfare and Benevolence of the said officers.

4. The respondent no.1 is the UCO Bank and the respondent no.2 is the All India UCO Bank Officers Federation.

5. In the present case, the respondent no.1-Bank has frozen the petitioner's account lying with the said Bank on the purported ground that there have been 2 certain irregularities in formation of the trust and re-organization of the same by the respondent no.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that such freezing was done without any prior notice to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for hearing the writ petition on merits insofar as the action on the part of the respondent no.1- Bank was palpably illegal since the Bank does not have any authority or jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the formation or re-organization or re- orientation of the trust, which comes within the domain of a civil court and/or other appropriate authority as designated by law.

8. Hence, prima facie, the freezing of the amount of the petitioner is palpably illegal.

9. However, since the respondents pray for some time, the respondents are directed to file their affidavits- in-opposition within three weeks from date. Reply, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter.

10. The matter shall be placed in the monthly list of April, 2024 for hearing.

11. During pendency of the writ petition, however, the respondent no.1-Bank shall permit the petitioner to operate its account lying with the UCO Bank. 3

12. It is made clear that the interim order shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)