ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the 2nd respondent/HDFC Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short) to de-freeze the account of the petitioner maintained with the Bank and has sought a further direction not to hold the amount for any other purposes. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner was an employee of IBM Solutions Private Limited and later gets transferred to another software company. At the time when the petitioner was in employment in the subsequent company – Kyndryl, he availed a housing loan from the Bank in respect of a flat built by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is the builder. 3. The petitioner had entered into a tripartite agreement on 1-08-2016 with the builder and the Bank, pursuant to which the loan was directly paid by the Bank to the 3rd respondent. On the ground that the loan had become sticky, as no repayment had happened, the Bank obtains an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.7994 of 2022 from the hands of the competent civil Court at Bangalore. In the meanwhile the petitioner retires from service of the company on attaining the age of superannuation on 01-03-2023. In the light of savings Bank Account being held by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent/Bank, the employer transferred Rs.19,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner maintained with the 2nd respondent/Bank. It was gratuity and other service benefits. The employer communicates to the petitioner that the amount has been credited to his account maintained with the Bank. No sooner the amount is deposited into the Bank, the Bank debit freezes the subject account on the ground that it has been in possession of a decree in O.S.No.7994 of 2022 and the amount had to be paid to the Bank towards the loan that was taken by the petitioner under the tripartite agreement. The petitioner then approached RERA by registering a complaint that the flat is not delivered in time due to which he is put to serious jeopardy by the act of the 3rd respondent/ builder. Freezement of the account of the petitioner in which the amount of gratuity and other service benefits are held is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Freezement of the account of the petitioner in which the amount of gratuity and other service benefits are held is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Heard Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.B. Sreedevi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that what is found in the account is gratuity and other terminal benefits which could not have been taken away by the act of the respondent/Bank directing freezement of the account. He would submit that the petitioner who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation is left without money as the entire amount lying in the account has been frozen. The learned counsel would submit that the very living of the petitioner is put to jeopardy due to the act of the Bank. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the Bank would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner owes EMI dues to the Bank. The Bank had every right and has first charge over any amount received to the account of the petitioner, be it gratuity or any other service benefits. The Bank is entitled to recover the amount as the 3rd respondent builder has not paid monthly installments. The learned counsel would submit that the right of the Bank to recover the amount is over and above the right of the petitioner towards the gratuity or service benefits. She would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was an employee of Kyndryl is a matter of record. During his service, he enters into a tripartite agreement for a loan of Rs.62/- lakhs towards flat which was to be built and developed by the 3rd respondent. It was a tripartite agreement. The loan was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent and the borrower and the builder were jointly and severally responsible for clearing the loan. The builder does not pay the amount though the amount was transferred to the builder. Here begins the problem to the petitioner. It was a tripartite agreement. The loan was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent and the borrower and the builder were jointly and severally responsible for clearing the loan. The builder does not pay the amount though the amount was transferred to the builder. Here begins the problem to the petitioner. The Bank knocks at the doors of the competent civil Court seeking a sum of Rs.42,59,614/- to be recovered from the hands of the 1st or the 2nd defendant viz., the petitioner and the 3rd respondent respectively in terms of the tripartite agreement. Both the petitioner and the builder are placed ex-parte and the suit was decreed by the following order: “ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with cost. The defendants are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.42,59,614/-(Rupees Forty two lakhs fifty nine thousand six hundred and fourteen only) with current and future interest at the rate of 9.45% per annum from the date of suit sill realization.” The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were held jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.42,59,614/- with interest. After the aforesaid decree the petitioner retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement of the petitioner, as obtaining under the Payment of Gratuity Act (‘the Act’ for short) and on determining service of the petitioner to be 21 years 10 months amount of gratuity was quantified at Rs.18,94,511/- and also communicated to the petitioner that it is deposited in the 2nd respondent/Bank. The moment it is deposited the account is debit frozen and the petitioner is put to jeopardy by non-allowing usage of the gratuity amount that is dropped into the account of the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Bank which has a decree in its favour has first charge over any amount that comes into the account. I decline to accept the said submission. The submission is fundamentally flawed. What is dropped into the account of the petitioner is the amount of gratuity as obtaining under the Act. The Bank or any other person cannot place a lien or freeze the account of any person whose amount in the account is the amount of gratuity. I decline to accept the said submission. The submission is fundamentally flawed. What is dropped into the account of the petitioner is the amount of gratuity as obtaining under the Act. The Bank or any other person cannot place a lien or freeze the account of any person whose amount in the account is the amount of gratuity. It is always open to the lender to take such appropriate steps in law to recover the amount but cannot attach the gratuity or debit freeze the account which contains the amount of gratuity or any other service benefits. 9. Gratuity has been deposited into the account of the petitioner under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules which is in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Such gratuity can be recovered only in terms of the Act. Marking of lien or debit freezing of the account would amount to withholding of the amount of gratuity that is payable to an employee, which power the Bank does not have except initiating proceedings in accordance with law. Taking recourse to a decree passed by the concerned civil Court pursuant to a tripartite agreement would not mean that the contract or decree would override the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as follows: “14. ACT TO OVERRIDE OTHER ENACTMENTS, ETC.- The provisions of this Act or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.” Section 14 mandates overriding effect of the Act over any other enactment, instrument or contract. If any other statute or contract is also over-ridden in terms of Section 14 of the Act, it can hardly be said that an agreement will have precedence over the statute. It is the tripartite agreement and the decree obtained is on the strength of a tripartite agreement. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination such interpretation can be placed that an agreement would override a statute particularly the Act, as the mandate of Section 14 is absolutely clear. Therefore, the debit freezement of the account of the petitioner is on the face of it illegal and high-handed on the part of the 2nd respondent/Bank. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination such interpretation can be placed that an agreement would override a statute particularly the Act, as the mandate of Section 14 is absolutely clear. Therefore, the debit freezement of the account of the petitioner is on the face of it illegal and high-handed on the part of the 2nd respondent/Bank. Wherefore, a direction ensues to the 2nd respondent/Bank to forthwith de-freeze the account of the petitioner and if the amount held in the account maintained with the 2nd respondent is the account where gratuity amount is saved, the 2nd respondent cannot even in future mark a lien on the said amount or freeze the account on the score that it has an ex-parte decree interpreting a tripartite agreement. Such action of the 2nd respondent is sans countenance and in the peculiar facts of this case. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (a) Writ Petition is allowed. (b) A mandamus is issued to the 2nd respondent/Bank to de-freeze the account of the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and permit him to operate the account as was being done prior to the order of debit-freezement.