The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to interfere with the freezing of a company’s bank account, citing serious allegations of suspicious and fraudulent financial transactions.
The bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has observed that the allegations against the petitioner-company were serious in nature and remained unexplained. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the suspicious entries, the Court held that there was no ground to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The case involved multiple writ petitions filed by Kayast Infotech Private Limited against Canara Bank, seeking directions to de-freeze its bank account maintained at the Sehnewal Branch in Ludhiana. The petitions were heard together as they involved common questions of law and fact.
The petitioner contended that it is a duly registered private limited company, compliant with requirements of the Registrar of Companies and GST authorities. It argued that it receives payments from clients through digital modes such as Google Pay and that there was no justification for freezing its account.
However, the respondent bank opposed the plea, highlighting that the account in question had witnessed hundreds of suspicious transactions. It relied on investigations conducted by police authorities in Gujarat and other states, which allegedly revealed that fraudulently obtained funds were being routed through multiple accounts in a layered manner. According to the bank, the petitioner’s account formed part of this chain of transactions typically used in financial fraud schemes.
The Court refused to grant relief and disposed of the petitions. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the bank and provide a proper explanation regarding the source of the disputed transactions. The bank was directed to proceed further in accordance with law after considering such an explanation.
Case Details
Case Title: Kayast Infotech Private Limited versus Canara Bank, Sehnewal Branch, Ludhiana
Case No.: CWP No.28562 of 2024(O&M)
Date: 09.04.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Sudesh Sahi, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Gaurav Goel, Advocate
