AANCHAL GOYAL vs CANARA BANK — CWP/10926/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 14. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Feb-2026

CNR: PHHC010588552026

e-Filing Number

06-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/20975/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/10926/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.15 - MISC. UOI ( 741 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AANCHAL GOYAL

    Adv. SAHIL GARG

  2. 2.Canara Bank

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CANARA BANK

  2. 2.Canara Bank

  3. 3.HDFC Bank

  4. 4.AU Small Finance Bank

  5. 5.Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

  6. 6.Inspector Incharge

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed Aanchal Goyal's petition and directed banks to de-freeze her accounts within one week, finding that no FIR was registered against her, no Magistrate's order under BNSS Section 107 authorized the freeze, and she had transferred only her own legitimate funds (including FDR maturity and investment app returns). The court held that freezing entire accounts based on suspicious entries without evidence of the account holder's involvement in criminal activity constitutes disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power violating the right to livelihood. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/10926/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed Aanchal Goyal's petition and directed banks to de-freeze her accounts within one week, finding that no FIR was registered against her, no Magistrate's order under BNSS Section 107 authorized the freeze, and she had transferred only her own legitimate funds (including FDR maturity and investment app returns). The court held that freezing entire accounts based on suspicious entries without evidence of the account holder's involvement in criminal activity constitutes disproportionate and arbitrary exercise of power violating the right to livelihood. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case