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

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more