Skip to main content

Bank cannot freeze employee’s account on employer’s request

A bank cannot freeze the account of an employee on the request of the employer and become a judge of dispute between them, a consumer forum here has said while holding IDBI Bank Ltd guilty of deficiency for doing so.

A bench of New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturevdi, made the observation while asking IDBI Bank Ltd to pay  Rs. 20,000 to Delhi resident Om Prakash Sharma, noting that his account was freezed from December 23 to 27, 2010, on his employer’s request and without
any intimation to him.

“In our considered view, the bank cannot become a judge of dispute between the employer and employee and freeze the account of employee on the request of employer. Such a right belongs to Court or police on investigation can resort to such a request,” the forum said, adding the bank did a “negligence act” in freezing Sharma’s account.

It asked the bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000 for deficiency and litigation charges while holding the bank “guilty of gross deficiency”.

Sharma had told the forum that he had some dispute with his employer and was given a cheque of Rs. 59,000 towards settlement of dues.

However, Sharma said that he came to know through RTI that his employer had written to his bank to put a debit freeze on his account, alleging that complainant had stolen the said signed cheque and filled in figures and got the money transferred in his account.

In its order, the forum also noted that the employer had not lodged any FIR with police about the theft of cheque by complainant.

 Article referred: http://www.goacom.com/business/25857-bank-cannot-freeze-employee-s-account-on-employer-s-request

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more