The Calcutta High Court has directed a bank to immediately defreeze the accounts of Xenixt Technologies Private Limited after finding that the accounts had been frozen without any court order or authorization from a magistrate.
Justice Krishna Rao held that merely receiving a complaint through a government portal was not enough to justify freezing bank accounts.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Xenixt Technologies Private Limited and others after five of their bank accounts were frozen on October 9, 2024. According to the company, the bank informed them that the action had been taken following instructions received from another respondent bank.
The petitioners argued that the freezing of accounts severely affected their business operations. Their counsel told the court that the accounts had been frozen “without any order of the Court and without any authority.”
The bank, however, submitted that it had acted on the basis of a complaint received through the portal of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Following this submission, the court directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs be added as a party to the proceedings.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the Union of India informed the court that despite repeated requests, no instructions had been received from the authorities regarding the complaint.
Justice Krishna Rao examined earlier rulings of various High Courts, including the Bombay High Court judgment in Kartick Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India and the Kerala High Court decision in Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala.
Referring to those judgments, the court observed that under Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), there is a clear distinction between seizure and attachment of property.
The court noted that seizure under Section 106 may be carried out by a police officer during investigation, but attachment or freezing of property requires an order from a magistrate under Section 107. The order recorded that freezing a bank account is “not permissible under Section 106 of BNSS.”
The bench further observed,
“The bank has freezed the accounts without any order of the Court and only on the basis of the report through the portal.”
After considering the records and submissions, the High Court found that neither the bank nor the Union of India could show that any competent court had authorized the freezing of the accounts.
The court directed the bank to “immediately defreeze the accounts of the petitioners and to allow the petitioners to operate the bank accounts.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Xenixt Technologies Private Limited & Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 8453 of 2025
Judge: Justice Krishna Rao
Decision Date: May 6, 2026
