Now Reading: Calcutta HC raps HDFC for blocking Abhishek Banerjee’s account
-
01
Calcutta HC raps HDFC for blocking Abhishek Banerjee’s account
The Calcutta High Court on Monday disposed of TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's plea after HDFC Bank told the court it had reactivated his bank account, which was blocked on August 10 pending…
The Calcutta High Court on Monday disposed of TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's plea after HDFC Bank told the court it had reactivated his bank account, which was blocked on August 10 pending additional due diligence. Justice Krishna Rao heard the matter. Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing for Banerjee, sought nominal costs for the unilateral restriction, but the court disposed the petition after the bank confirmed reactivation.
HDFC Bank's counsel submitted that the blocking originated from the bank's Central Vigilance Team and gave no assurance that similar action would not be taken again. Banerjee's account was frozen on the same day the Supreme Court permitted him to travel abroad for eye treatment. Bar&Bench reports the court asked HDFC, 'Is this how you deal with customers?' LiveLaw notes the bank cited its internal vigilance process.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Both Bar&Bench and LiveLaw report the same outcome, account reactivated, plea disposed, but frame the story from opposite ends of the timeline. Bar&Bench leads with the High Court's stinging oral observation ('Is this how you deal with customers?'), foregrounding judicial anger over HDFC's unilateral blocking of Abhishek Banerjee's account on the very day the Supreme Court allowed him travel for medical treatment. LiveLaw, in contrast, focuses on the disposal order and the bank's caveat that 'similar action' could recur, thereby normalising the bank's internal vigilance process. Bar&Bench’s narrative is government-critical indirectly: a ruling party MP publicly embarrassed by a private bank. LiveLaw’s is neutral-report but leaves a tension unresolved, the bank gave no assurance against repeat blocking. The measured takeaway: the court accepted the reactivation without imposing costs, leaving the underlying due-diligence dispute unadjudicated. All eyes are now on whether Banerjee pursues a separate remedy or the bank's vigilance team triggers another freeze.
Coverage: 2 sources, 1 government-critical, 1 neutral
Sources (2): barandbench.com (government critical), livelaw.in (neutral report)
This story was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 2 sources.
