RAFTAARPAY FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs AXIS BANK Advocate - ABHISHEK BHANDARI — CW/4492/2026

Case under Other Acts Section NO. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-Mar-2026

CNR: RJHC020221182026

Filing Number

CW/12783/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

CW/4492/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Judge

Anuroop Singhi

Coram

Anuroop Singhi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Matters relating to Bank Loans and Transactions ( 3100 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Other Acts Section NO

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAFTAARPAY FINTECH PRIVATE LIMITED

    Adv. PREETI SHARMA,KARTIK AGARWAL,KARTIK AGARWAL, ,KARTIK AGARWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AXIS BANK Advocate - ABHISHEK BHANDARI

  2. 2.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. BHUWNESH SHARMA AAG

  3. 3.STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

    Adv. ABHISHEK BHANDARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Anuroop SinghiView PDF

    The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Raftaarpay Fintech's writ petition seeking to unfreeze its bank account, finding that the company itself had requested the freeze on 23.12.2025 as a precautionary measure but failed to disclose this in the petition. The court held that the petitioner's concealment of this material fact reflected bad faith intent, making it ineligible for relief, though it permitted the company to directly approach the bank or invoke available remedies under Home Ministry guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Anuroop SinghiView PDF

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Anuroop SinghiView PDF

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    For Admission- Fresh (With Stay)

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CW/4492/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Raftaarpay Fintech's writ petition seeking to unfreeze its bank account, finding that the company itself had requested the freeze on 23.12.2025 as a precautionary measure but failed to disclose this in the petition. The court held that the petitioner's concealment of this material fact reflected bad faith intent, making it ineligible for relief, though it permitted the company to directly approach the bank or invoke available remedies under Home Ministry guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case