TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Garodia. For the RBI: Ms. Suchismita Ghosh. JUDGMENT PER MADHURESH PRASAD, J.: 1. The present intra-court appeals arise out of a common order passed on three different applications (CAN 2 of 2025) filed by present appellants in WPA NO.6088 of 2025, WPA 6112 of 2025; and WPA No. 6099 of 2025. 2. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners therein challenging an order whereby and whereunder the bank accounts were frozen by the Axis Bank Limited. 3. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 09.04.2025 passing directions for defreezing of the accounts of the writ petitioners. The order was subject to deposit of indemnity bond as per banking norms and giving liberty to the writ petitioners for raising any other issues arising out of freezing of the accounts. 4. The order of the writ court was not being implemented, giving rise to contempt application CPAN No.953 of 2025. 5. One application, CAN 1 of 2025 was filed by the Axis Bank seeking clarification of the order dated 09.04.2025 as regards details of signatories who may be allowed to operate the accounts upon defreezing of the same. 6. At this juncture, the present appellants filed applications (CAN ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the NCLAT. 11. It was submitted that the accounts were initially frozen on the complaint made by the present applicants and therefore, they were necessary parties to the writ petition. The writ petitioner suppressing these facts have obtained the order from the writ court behind the back of the applicants. Therefore, a case was made out for intervention of the present applicants; and recall of the final order dated 09.04.2025 passed in the writ proceeding. 12. After giving a detailed consideration to the issue, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 19.06.2025 and requested the learned Single Judge to take up all pending applications together as per convenience of the Bench. The Division Bench thought it proper that the learned Single Judge dispose of the recall application filed by respondents 5 to 7 and clarificatory application filed by the Axis Banks first; and thereafter decide the contempt application subject to outcome of the recall application. 13. The judgement of the Division Bench dated 05.01.2026 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No(s). 10604 of 2026 and analogous matters. The Hon'ble Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "sublato fundamento cadit opus". 18. Mr Banerjee learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants in MAT 1216 of 2026 also raised an issue that the learned Single Judge has recorded certain findings in the order in paragraph 16 to 20 of the impugned order which are likely to prejudice the applicants in the other disputes including their pending appeal before the NCLAT. Insofar as such submission is concerned, we only observe that whatever has been recorded in the impugned order dated 23.07.2026 was considered for the limited purposes of deciding the applications filed by the present appellants. 19. Mr. Thakkar submitted that an order was passed on 18.07.2025 in the matter pending before the NCLAT, with consent of parties deferring the hearing of the appeal due to pendency of C.A. No. 4587 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the applicants cannot derive any benefit of the fact of pendency of the matter before NCLAT. He also submits that it is evident from the order dated 18.07.2025 that the writ petitioner is conscious of the effect of pendency of the C.A. No. 4587 of 2024 on the other pending proceedings. 20. Such submission in our view doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Supreme Court of India, which in clear terms stated that the learned Single Judge while deciding the application without being influenced in any manner by observations made in paragraphs 30 to 48 of the judgment in MAT 989 of 2025. From a bare perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, under appeal we find that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in MAT 989 of 2025. 26. Mr. Mitra has also laid emphasis on the time frame fixed by the Apex Court, for disposal of the matter before the learned Single Judge, i.e., within 3 months from 11.05.2026. He submits that the order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is a well-considered order requiring no interference. 27. Mr. Bachwat Ld. Sr. Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H. Anjanappa & Ors vs. A. Prabhakar & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 183 to submit that since the applications for intervention were rejected by the writ court, an application for leave to appeal was required to be filed. He refers to paragraph 25 onwards of the judgment wherein the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....party to the order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, impugned in the present appeal. We, therefore, find no force in the submission advanced by Mr. Bachwat regarding the petitioner's appeal being circumscribed by a requirement of filing an application for leave to appeal. Therefore, cconsidering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of H. Anjanappa & Ors (supra) we do not find force in a submission that the appellants were required to file an application seeking leave to challenge the order passed on their application. 33. The above noted submissions advanced by the learned Sr. Counsels, for the appellants in substance raised mere apprehensions. No tangible right was demonstrated to show that the applicants were proper and necessary parties. The plea regarding various disputes in the background of the present application, also would not justify filing of an application for intervention in a disposed of writ proceeding, much less for recall of the final order dated 09.04.2025 passed in the writ petition. 34. Another issue regarding maintainability of an application for intervention, also arises, since the application for intervention was taken out ....