K.K. JOSE AND ASSOCIATES V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/34740/2023

AI Insights

The case involves K.K. Jose and Associates, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other respondents concerning the freezing of their bank accounts by police authorities. The petitioner argued that the freeze was excessive and sought relief to allow normal transactions beyond a specified limit. The court referenced a previous judgment (W.P.(C).No.12960/2023) which addressed similar issues and decided to apply the same principles and directions to this case. Additionally, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the police requisition for the freeze in a separate writ petition if deemed necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686685 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C).No.12960/2023
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K SUDHINKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K K JOSE
• Keywords: Account freeze; Writ petition; Police Authority; Bank Directive

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 34740 OF 2023 PETITIONER: K.K. JOSE AND ASSOCIATES, ROOM NO IX/54 FIRST FLOOR, YENVEE COMPLEX TEMPLE ROAD ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR PARTNER MR. K K JOSE, PIN – 683101. BY ADVS.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH P.PRAMEL VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR COLIN ALEX SOORAJ M.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2 SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, CYBER CRIME CELL, LUCKNOW, BALMIKI MARG, INSIDE HAZRATGANJ POLICE STATION, DM COMPOUND COLONY, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN – 226001. 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GUNNAUR POLICE STATION, SH 18, GUNNAUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN – 243722. 4 CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, ALUVA BRANCH, PALACE ROAD, ALUVA, PIN – 683101. BY ADVS.K.SUDHINKUMAR GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 34740 OF 2023 -2- JUDGMENT The facts involved in this case are covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.12960/2023 and connected matters. Since the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem on this, I allow this writ petition in terms of the said judgment. Consequently, I order this Writ Petition with the following directions: (a) The respondent Bank arrayed in this case, is directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the petitioner, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to deal with their account, and transact therein, beyond that limit. WP(C) NO. 34740 OF 2023 -3- (b) The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioner in this Writ Petition will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (c) On the Bank receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere to the same and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be. (d) If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in this WP(C) NO. 34740 OF 2023 -4- Writ Petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future. After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client also intends to challenge the requisition by the Police Authority, since it is not legally permissible. He, therefore, prayed for liberty for his client to do so, through a separate writ petition. In addition to the afore reliefs, the afore requested liberty is also deserved in favour of the petitioner; for which purpose, all their contentions in that regard are left open. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 34740 OF 2023 -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34740/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 01.09.2023 ALONG WITH INCIDENT COMPLAINT TRANSACTION INFORMATION EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT "