Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) An action of a private bank in freezing an account maintained by the first petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners relies upon 2013 SCC online AP 581 (Gopal Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore v. Indusind Bank Ltd., MumbaiOrs.) and submits that, a writ petition against the concerned bank is maintainable. He also submits that, in the facts of the present case, the private bank acted illegally in freezing the bank account of the petitioner.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that, the writ petition is not maintainable. Simpliciter on the ground that, the bank is governed by the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and has to comply with the provisions of the Banking Regulation of 1949, does not make a private bank amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He relies upon (2003) 10 SCC 733 (Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar ThomasOrs.) as well as 2007 (4) CHN 369 (Standard Chartered Bank v. Standard Chartered Bank Pensioner's AssociationOrs.) in support of his contentions. He draws the attention of the Court to the pleadings made in the affidavit-in-opposition and submits that, the petitioners are under the control and management of the same natural person as that of REI Agro Ltd. REI Agro Ltd. has defrauded a consortium of banks of a sum of Rs. 7,000 crores. The first petitioner is one of the instrumentalities in perpetrating such fraud. Moreover, the bank acted on the basis of a decision arrived at in the consortium's meeting and a direction issued by the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation.;