Delhi High Court rules on account freeze appeal, emphasizes prompt adjudication

The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal challenging the order directing the de-freezing of the petitioner's account. The Court ruled that if the respondent provided a bank guarantee, the accounts could be de-frozen. As the respondent could not furnish a bank guarantee, a stalemate ensued. Emphasizing the need to promptly finalize adjudication proceedings, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order. The appellant agreed to submit remaining documents within two weeks, followed by the respondent filing a show cause within six weeks. The appeal was disposed of without costs, with no opinion rendered on the case's merits or seized cash release.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to the tenability of the order dated 25th January, 2010 u/s WP(C) No. 7992/2008 directing de-freezing of the petitioner's account; Finalization of adjudication proceedings; Setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The High Court of Delhi heard an intra-Court appeal challenging the order dated 25th January, 2010 u/s WP(C) No. 7992/2008, directing the de-freezing of the petitioner's account. The Court directed that if the respondent furnished a bank guarantee for the amount in question, the accounts could be de-frozen.

The respondent expressed inability to furnish a bank guarantee, leading to a stalemate. The appellant argued that the blanket order to de-freeze the account was unjust as there was no limitation on the adjudication proceeding. Reference was made to a Supreme Court order directing a bank guarantee in a similar case.

Considering the circumstances, the Court emphasized the need to finalize the adjudication proceedings promptly. It was noted that a show cause notice had been issued to the respondent, who had begun supplying documents. The appellant agreed to provide the remaining documents within two weeks, after which the respondent would have six weeks to file a show cause.

The Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, clarifying that this action did not imply any opinion on the case's merits or the release of seized cash. The appeal was disposed of without any costs being awarded.

---