Skip to main content

‘Bank can’t freeze account without intimating customer’

Banks cannot invoke powers to create general lien to freeze a savings bank account and recover outstanding dues from an account holder without prior intimation to the customer, the Maharashtra state consumer commission held last week.

Invoking the provision for creating lien or freezing a savings bank account has to be with prior intimation to the complainant as opportunity of natural justice, the commission noted, reversing the Mumbai suburban district consumer forum’s ruling.

The district forum had rejected Chandivali resident Arti Krishnan’s complaint against HDFC Bank, stating that the bank was empowered to create lien on her savings bank account and was empowered to debit money from the account for settling purported credit card dues.

On April 25, 2006, Krishnan, who had lost her credit card, was issued a new card. There was a dispute about outstanding dues on the previous card and the bank agreed to settle it at Rs29,000, which Krishnan was supposed to pay in instalments.

Accordingly, she paid first instalment of Rs4,000. But even after adjustment of this amount, the bank showed an outstanding sum of Rs50,802. Later, the bank froze her savings account and withdrew a sum of Rs80,488.

HDFC Bank contested the complaint, contending it had the power to create lien in view of proviso to section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, and there were terms in the credit card agreement empowering the bank to act without notice.

The bank, however, did not place the copy of the credit card agreement before the state commission.

“In the absence of documentary evidence on record, relying on the provisions will be of no use,” the commission said, and concluded that action such as creating lien, freezing an account and withdrawing money has to be taken with prior intimation to the customer.

It held the bank guilty of deficiency in service after finding that no notice had been issued to the Chandivali resident, and directed the bank to refund a sum of Rs78,640, with annual interest at 9% within two months.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Bank-can-t-freeze-account-without-intimating-customer/Article1-1090108.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...