Rajkot: Freezing the account of a DIU business woman follows the closure of the City Council DU (DMC) proved expensive for private banks that are not only shown by the Civilior for ‘illegal actions’ but also ordered to pay for their litigation fees.
He happened in the process.
The Mahesh P civilian judge stated this order on October 11 and asked the bank to pay the plaintiff in Narotam Rs 25,000.
According to case details, the Plaintiff has default RS 16.66 lakh DMC while paying monthly installments according to tender conditions.
The woman has won the vegetable market tender at auction near the city of Chowk from the Union area that allows it to collect taxes from vendors.
Employers are also involved in the local hotel industry.
Narottam has maintained a savings account with ICICI Bank for the past 25 years, but in October 2018 he was not permitted to operate his account causing a ‘wrong loss’.
Bank with Mantas stated that they would only allow it to operate the account after he gave them a letter or written instruction from the DMC.
In its order, the court noted: “Defendat (Bank) does not have such legal rights or every banking law that allows the defendant to freeze every savings bank account without a court order, or the direction of Bank India’s reserves or a legal police engine that is legally bound To get a court permit to freeze a bank account.
“The bank also failed to produce the head of the DMC officer’s head directed it to freeze a certain account.
The next court states that the bank does not have legal rights to act as a recovery agent ‘.
“There were no documents to show the privacy of the contract between the defendant’s bank and the DMC to take the freezing of the Consumer Bank account for the alleged default in the Plaintiff’s section in the capacity of the Tax Collection Contractor,” the command was stated.
Advocate the Plaintiff, Manoj Chudasama told Tii, “The court order signaled the actions of the Bank defendant freezing the accounts of the Plaintiff’s savings as canceled and illegal and asked the bank to pay Rs 25,000 fees for litigation expenditure.”
Diu Court told the bank not to act as a ‘recovery agent’
