Summary:
In Writ Petition No. 5351 of 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, presided over by Justice Subba Reddy Satti, dismissed the petition filed by Pampana Kalyani, a government school teacher. The petitioner challenged the freezing of her salary account by the State Bank of India based on an interim order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a dispute with Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.

The petitioner argued that her account was frozen without notice, violating Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution, thus affecting her livelihood. However, the Court held that since the bank merely acted on a binding judicial order, and the petitioner failed to implead the financial institution or pursue available remedies under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration Act, the writ petition was not maintainable.

The Court emphasized the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an effective alternative statutory remedy exists. It also held that non-issuance of notice by the bank before account freezing was not arbitrary, as the action was based on a competent tribunal’s order.

Key Takeaways:
• Freezing by bank was a result of judicial direction from an Arbitral Tribunal.
• The petitioner failed to pursue remedies under the Arbitration Act (Section 34/37).
• Financial institution (Piramal) was a necessary party but not impleaded.
• Article 226 jurisdiction should not bypass statutory remedies.
• Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.