Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rina Habiba vs The Bank Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2020
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
FMA 74 of 2020
M/L-2 (MAT 436 of 2017)
07.01.2020
With
Ct-6
CAN 1458 of 2018
(AD)
Rina Habiba
Vs.
The Bank of India & Ors.
Mr. Golam Mastafa
Mr. Tarasankar Samanta
... for the appellant.
Ms. Debjani Mitra
... for the Bank of India.
The appeal arises out of an order dated February 16,
2017 by which several writ petitions of similar kind were
dismissed including the present appellant's writ petition
being W.P. 8737(W) of 2016.
The short grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner deposited certain amounts in a bank account
maintained with the respondent bank, but the bank has
refused to allow the operation of the relevant account on the basis of specious complaints lodged by third parties. By the judgment and order impugned, the writ court noticed that cooperative societies and like parties had written letters to the bank that employees of such organizations had siphoned off funds and the appellant herein was a close relative of one of such employees and the funds parked with the bank in this case may have been the stolen money. The writ court took cognizance of such allegations and held that till the disputes as to the nature of the funds deposited with the bank were resolved in appropriate proceedings, no order need be passed on the writ petition.
It is elementary that a bank, particularly a nationalized bank, is obliged to follow the commands of 2 its constituent, particularly when there is a credit balance in the bank of the constituent.
However, if instructions are issued by the Reserve Bank of India or if orders of court are passed restraining the concerned bank from allowing a constituent to operate the relevant account, the bank is obliged to follow such instructions or obey the relevant orders. Ordinarily, a bank cannot act on the basis of a stray complaint of a cooperative society or like organization and freeze the account of a constituent. Indeed, in several situations, the bank adopting such procedure is found liable to compensate the constituent by way of damages if cheques issued by the constituent are dishonoured on presentation.
In the absence of any lien being exercised by the bank over the relevant account or the funds lying to the credit of a constituent, the bank cannot stop or freeze the operation of any account. At the very highest, the bank may put the constituent on notice that it has received complaints or the bank may call upon the complainant to obtain an appropriate freezing order from a forum duly authorized to pass such an order. In the absence of a bank either having a claim against the constituent or a lien on the bank account or the bank being obliged to obey any instructions of the Central Bank or any order of court, a bank cannot freeze any account of its constituent for any period at all.
Ideally, the complainants who had lodged complaints against this writ petitioner and the other related writ petitioners ought to have been impleaded in the 3 proceedings before the Court of the first instance. It, however, appears that despite the relevant cooperative society and others attempting to be added as parties, the relevant applications were rejected. In such view of the matter, particularly when the seriousness of the allegations brought by the complainants against the writ petitioner cannot be appropriately assessed or looked into in course of the present proceedings, the judgment and order impugned are set aside and the respondent bank is directed to allow the operation of the relevant bank account of the appellant herein after a period of eight weeks from date. The bank will forward a copy of this order to any persons who have complained against the appellant herein or the operation of the appellant's account within seven days from date and call upon such complainants to obtain an order from an appropriate forum to freeze the account or the like. If there is no appropriate order from any court of law or like forum for freezing the relevant account of the appellant herein maintained with the respondent bank within the period of eight weeks as granted by this order, the respondent bank will allow the free operation of the relevant account by the appellant. In the event, no freezing order is obtained against the operation of the relevant bank account within the time permitted by this order, the bank will pay costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to the appellant.
FMA 74 of 2020 and CAN 1458 of 2018 are disposed of as above.
There will otherwise be no order as to costs. 4 Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Kausik Chanda, J.)