High Court Orders Prompt Action on Frozen Bank Account

The Madras High Court directed the first respondent to either issue an attachment order within 30 days or allow the petitioner to operate the bank account in question. The court emphasized the need for a formal order freezing the account and criticized the respondent for preventing the petitioner from accessing it without proper legal basis. The judgment aimed to provide clarity and ensure adherence to legal procedures regarding the bank account, without expressing any opinion on the ongoing investigation under FEMA.

---

---

Issues:
- Declaration sought for illegal seizure and attachment of bank account
- Allegation of preventing operation of bank account under FEMA investigation
- Previous writ petition regarding the same bank account
- Pending investigation under FEMA
- Lack of order freezing the bank account
- Court's direction regarding attachment order

Analysis:
The writ petition before the Madras High Court sought a declaration regarding the alleged illegal seizure and attachment of a bank account belonging to the petitioner's father, maintained with a specific bank. The petitioner contended that the account was not allowed to be operated under the pretext of investigating the matter under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). It was emphasized that no formal order of attachment had been issued by the first respondent concerning the bank account in question. The court noted a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner's father with similar relief, which was disposed of after the respondent's counsel clarified that the account was not frozen, but certain restrictions were placed on debit transactions. The present petition was filed by the son of the earlier petitioner following his father's demise, seeking permission to operate the bank account.

In response to the current petition, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the investigation under FEMA was ongoing and indicated possible violations involving the funds in the bank account. However, during the court proceedings, it was revealed that no formal order freezing the account had been issued by the first respondent. Consequently, the court found it unjustifiable for the respondent to prevent the petitioner from operating the bank account without a proper attachment order in place. The court emphasized that the first respondent must either issue an order to freeze the account in accordance with the law or allow the petitioner to operate it, rather than leaving the petitioner in a state of uncertainty.

As a result, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to either issue an attachment order within 30 days or allow the petitioner to operate the bank account if no such order was issued. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the investigation itself and did not impose any costs. The judgment aimed to address the lack of a formal attachment order while ensuring clarity and proper legal procedures regarding the bank account in question.

---