Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4742/2026 of SAYED RAIHAN SALIM AHMED Vs THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS on 13 October 2026
2026:GAU-AS:15608
GAHC010184982026 2026:GAU-AS:15608 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4742/2026 SAYED RAIHAN SALIM AHMED S/O SAYED NAZIR UDDIN AHMED, VILL- KATARIHARA, P.O.- KATARIHARA, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783132
GAHC010184982026
2026:GAU-AS:15608
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4742/2026
SAYED RAIHAN SALIM AHMED
S/O SAYED NAZIR UDDIN AHMED, VILL- KATARIHARA, P.O.- KATARIHARA, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783132
VERSUS
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT
STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVAN, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021
2:THE INDIAN CYBER CRIME COORDINATION CENTRE
14C 5TH FLOOR
NDCC II BUILDING
JAI SINGH ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001
3:ZONAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781006
4:THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GOALPARA BAZAR BRANCH
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
Page 1 of 2
ASSAM- 78310
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, MR. J UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR U SARMA(R1,3,4),MR. N BARUA(R1,3,4),MR. K
SARMA(C.G.C.)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
14.10.2026
1. Heard Mr. J. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
2. The petitioner claims that he has been maintaining a Savings Bank Account No. 30539461387 with the respondent No. 4 Bank. The petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent State Bank of India authorities have kept the said Savings Bank Account blocked entirely on the premise that there has been a disputed transaction credit to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Savings Bank Account has been blocked without any prior notice to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instruction submits that the bank account has already been de-frozen and is now being allowed to be operated subject to a lien of Rs. 2,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been able to operate the said bank account.
5. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present case.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…