The High Court held that the action of the respondents in freezing the bank account of the petitioner...

The High Court held that the action of the respondents in freezing the bank account of the petitioner without any pending proceedings under the Act was illegal and violated the statutory mandate u/s 110(5) of the Act. The communication to the bank did not contain any opinion based on tangible material regarding the necessity to freeze the account for protecting revenue or preventing smuggling. The Court emphasized that the power to provisionally attach a bank account must be exercised through an order in writing recording the opinion, as mandated by law. Mere communication or recording of opinion is not sufficient compliance. The requirement of passing an order in writing is to prevent arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. Since the ini..... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X