# Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Anr v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 877
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24192 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-chandra-singh-negi-anr-v-bank-of-baroda-ors-opp-parties-53663
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Whether any action has been taken either by
the Bank over unsolicited transaction.
Headnotes
Cyber Fraud-unsolicited transactions-reportedalleged no action has been taken either by the
Police or the Bank-petitioners invoked clause
6(ii)-the record shows that the transaction was
deliberate and was done by the petitioners
themselves-no embezzlement of funds as every
transaction was within the knowledge of
petitioners-RBI circular also do not provide
shelter for garbing personal transaction as cyber
fraud-here appears to be gross negligence on
the part of the petitioners -the case of a third
party hacking into their accounts is not
conclusively proved-relief sought cannot be
granted-W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

7 All. Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
877
question but their status as tenants is
otherwise disputed. We are, however, not
inclined to dwell upon this aspect of the
matter as the question with regard to the
determination of tenancy of individuals
would be gone into by the Rent Authority
in accordance with the applicable Statute.

15. At this juncture, we may only
observe that the rights of the tenants in
such an exigency will have to be dealt with
under the Tenancy Act, 2021. The tenants,
however, will not be entitled to object to
the expeditious demolition of the tenanted
building, particularly when the authorities
have inspected the said premises and found
the requirement of its demolition as
imperative. The applicable scheme under
the Act, 1959 for protection of life of
individuals on account of building being
dilapidated and posing threat to life of
individuals will have to be given primacy
over the protection of tenancy rights of
individual applicants.

16. In such circumstances, we are of
the view that the authorities of Nagar
Nigam, Aligarh would be required to
demolish the dilapidated tenanted premises
in question, in accordance with law. Such
action/exercise of the Nagar Nigam cannot
be resisted by the tenants by making
protests etc. The Nagar Nigam shall
provide a reasonable opportunity to such
occupants to remove their belongings.

17. We, in such circumstances, deem
it
appropriate
to direct
the
District
Magistrate, Aligarh as well as Senior
Superintendent of Police, Aligarh
to
provide requisite police force on the
request of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh so that the
dilapidated
structure
in
question
be
demolished.
Such
action
would
be
undertaken strictly in accordance with law.
We also provide that the demolition of the
structure would in no way affect the rights
of the tenants as are available to them
under the Tenancy Act, 2021. The requisite
action in terms of the notice/Act, 1959
would be undertaken at the earliest,
preferably within two months from today.

18. We expect the tenants occupying
the premises in question to be alive to the
concern of protection of life of individuals
due to imminent collapse of the building
and not to create any resistance/objection in
demolition of the building.

19. The appearance of the Municipal
Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh is
dispensed with.

20.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, this writ petition is
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 877
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ-C No. 24192 of 2022

Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Aniket Gupta, Mr. Prem Chandra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Mr. Namit Srivastava

Issue for consideration
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Whether any action has been taken either by
the Bank over unsolicited transaction.
Headnotes
Cyber Fraud-unsolicited transactions-reportedalleged no action has been taken either by the
Police or the Bank-petitioners invoked clause
6(ii)-the record shows that the transaction was
deliberate and was done by the petitioners
themselves-no embezzlement of funds as every
transaction was within the knowledge of
petitioners-RBI circular also do not provide
shelter for garbing personal transaction as cyber
fraud-here appears to be gross negligence on
the part of the petitioners -the case of a third
party hacking into their accounts is not
conclusively proved-relief sought cannot be
granted-W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick &
Ors. in S.L.P. No. 30677/2024
2. Jaiprakash Kulkarni and others v. The
Banking Ombudsman and others 2024 SCC
Online Bombay 1666

List of Acts
RBI Circular no. RBI/2017-2018/15, DBR. NO.
Leg. BC. 78/09.07.005/2017-2018 dated July 6,
2017

List of Keywords
Embezzled
amount;
transferred
amount;
unsolicited transactions; I.P. Address for the
alleged
transaction;
customer
liability;
negligence by the customer.
Appearance of the parties
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Aniket Gupta
and Mr. Prem Chandra, Advocates for the
Respondents: Mr. Namit Srivastava, Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF,
J. : The present writ petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India wherein the petitioners have prayed
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter
referred to as 'respondent no.1') and
Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred
to as 'respondent no.3') to restore the
illicitly embezzled fund of Rs.38,78,000/-
inclusive of penal interest at the rate of
24%.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the present
writ petition is delineated below:

a.
The
petitioner
no.1
and
petitioner
no.2
are
father
and
son
respectively. Both of them are proprietors
of their respective proprietorship firm
engaged in the business of transformers
fabrication.

b. Petitioners have opened two
accounts with respondent no.1 which was
having cash credit facility with limit of
Rs.1,20,00,000/-
and
Rs.1,30,00,000/-,
respectively and active net banking facility.

c. On June 19, 2022, petitioner
no.1 transferred amount of Rs.37,85,000/-
into account of petitioner no.2, and
thereafter, the said amount was transferred
to an unknown account. Aggrieved, the
petitioner no.2 lodged an F.I.R dated June
21, 2022 in Cyber Crime Police Station,
Civil Lines bearing no. 0012 of 2022 and
7 All. Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
879
the petitioner no.1 filed a complaint to
respondent
no.1
regarding
the
said
embezzlement.

d.
Being
aggrieved
by
the
inaction
of
respondents,
petitioners
approached this Court by means of the
present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS
OF
PETITIONERS

3. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners has made the
following submissions:

a. It is the case of the petitioners
that despite being vigilant and paying all
due diligence, such unsolicited transactions
have been carried out in their bank
accounts.

b. The sim card got blocked and
no sms and calls can be received
subsequent to transfer of money from the
account of petitioner no.1 to the account of
petitioner no. 2.

c. No action has been taken either
by the Police or the Bank even after
intimation to the police within 24 hours the
petitioner received sms. The investigation
is halted without any reason.

d. The petitioner has reported the
unsolicited transaction within 3 days
according to RBI Circular no. RBI/20172018/15,
DBR.
NO.
Leg.
BC.
78/09.07.005/2017-2018 dated July 6, 2017
wherein it is provided that such fraudulent
transaction should immediately be restored
to customer without any liability and also
the burden of proof in such scenario shall
completely lie upon the bank.

e. The I.P. Address for the alleged
transaction was not the same as of
immediate preceding transaction which
demonstrate that some third person was
involved for the embezzlement.

f. To buttress his arguments,
counsel has placed reliance on State Bank
of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick & Ors. in
S.L.P. No. 30677/2024 and a Bombay High
Court Judgment in Jaiprakash Kulkarni
and others v. The Banking Ombudsman
and others (W.P. no. 1150 of 2023)
reported in 2024 SCC Online Bombay
1666 wherein the court has held that
amount
withdrawn
by
fraudulent
transaction, should be restored back, if
reported.

CONTENTIONS
OF
RESPONDENTS

4. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents has rebutted the
arguments of petitioner and made following
submissions:

a. The alleged embezzled amount
was transferred from the account of
petitioner no.1 to the account of petitioner
no.2 and subsequently has been utilised by
transferring
it
to
the
accounts
of
beneficiaries that had already been added
by the petitioner no.2 on June 18, 2022.

b. The alleged transaction has
been done by petitioner no.1 via internet
banking by logging into his account and
sim card was never blocked and mobile
number in the same device was used to
generate one time password and also the
password was changed by petitioner
himself.

c. The device used by petitioner
no.2 in transferring the amount to the
different bank account was the same which
was being used by the petitioner no.2 in
operating his internet banking. The counsel
has placed I.P. Address details of the
petitioner no.2.

d. The petitioner no.2 himself
changed his password after completing all
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the alleged transactions which requires
verification process and the same can be
modified only after the internet bank
account holder is aware of his old
password.

ANALYSIS

5. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and
have also perused the relevant records of
the case and the affidavits filed on behalf of
both the parties.

6. After perusal of the Debit/Credit
details as well as I.P Address details,
evidently, the petitioners were not the
victims of cyber fraud as the alleged
transaction had been done diligently by the
petitioners
themselves
subsequent
to
logging into the internet banking account
on June 19, 2022 and transferring the
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- at 19.08.00 and
the amount of Rs.7,85,000/- at 19:11:28.
The petitioners also generated one time
password and also changed the password.
The amount that has been alleged to be
unauthorisedly transferred was originally
transferred to the accounts which were
added as a beneficiary by the petitioner
no.2. It is the admitted case of the
petitioners that they received sms on June
19, 2022 regarding withdrawal of amounts
in two denominations of Rs.30,00,000/-
and Rs.7,85,000/-
at
12.44
pm but
abstained
from
reporting
the
issue
immediately and filed the complaint on
cyber crime portal on June 20, 2022 and
lodged an F.I.R on June 21, 2022. The
delay in reporting the issue to bank
instantly about the transaction intimation
received via sms and lodging of F.I.R
depict that it is an afterthought and a
concocted story.

7. The petitioners take shelter of the
RBI Circular dated June 6, 2017 titled
"Customer Protection-Limiting Liability of
Customers in Unauthorised Electronic
Banking Transactions", the relevant part of
which is extracted below:

" Limited Liability of a Customer-

(a) Zero Liability of a Customer

6. A customer's entitlement to
zero
liability
shall
arise
where
the
unauthorised transaction occurs in the
following events:

(i).
Contributory
fraud/negligence/deficiency on the part of
the bank (irrespective of whether or not the
transaction is reported by the customer).

(ii). Third party breach where the
deficiency lies neither with the bank nor
with the customer but lies elsewhere in the
system, and the customer notifies the bank
within three working days of receiving the
communication from the bank regarding the
unauthorised transaction.

(b)
Limited
Liability
of
a
Customer

7. A customer shall be liable for
the loss occurring due to unauthorised
transactions in the following cases:

(i). In cases where the loss is due
to negligence by a customer, such as where
he has shared the payment credentials, the
customer will bear the entire loss until he
reports the unauthorised transaction to the
bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting
of the unauthorised transaction shall be
borne by the bank.

(ii)
In
cases
where
the
responsibility
for
the
unauthorised
electronic banking transaction lies neither
with the bank nor with the customer, but
lies elsewhere in the system and when there
is a delay (of four to seven working days
after receiving the communication from the
bank) on the part of the customer in
7 All. Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
881
notifying the bank of such a transaction,
the per transaction liability of the customer
shall be limited to the transaction value or
the
amount
mentioned
in
Table
1,
whichever is lower.

Table 1
Maximum Liability of a Customer under
paragraph 7(ii)

Type of Account
Maximu
m
Liability
(₹)
• BSBS
Accounts
5000
• All other SB
accounts
• Pre-paid
Payment
Instruments
and
Gift
Cards
• Current/Cash
Credit/Over
draft
Accounts of
MSMEs
• Current
Accounts/C
ash
Credit/Over
draft
Accounts of
Individuals
with annual
average
balance
(during 365
days
preceding
the
incidence of
fraud) /limit
up to Rs. 25
10,000
lakh.
• Credit cards
with
limit
upto Rs. 5
lakh
• All
other
Current/Cas
h
Credit/Over
draft
Accounts
• Credit cards
with
limit
above Rs. 5
lakh
25,000

Further, if the delay in reporting is
beyond seven working days, the customer
liability shall be determined as per the
bank's Board approved policy. Banks shall
provide the details of their policy in regard
to
customers'
liability
formulated
in
pursuance of these directions at the time of
opening the accounts. Banks shall also
display their approved policy in public
domain for wider dissemination. The
existing
customers
must
also
be
individually informed about the bank's
policy.
***

Burden of Proof

12.
The
burden
of
proving
customer liability in case of unauthorised
electronic banking transactions shall lie on
the bank."

CONCLUSION

8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid
circular would show that the burden of
proving the customer's liability in case of
unauthorized electronic banking, lies upon
the bank. The petitioners invoked clause
6(ii) but then one has to understand
whether the loss occurred due to negligence
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the customer. The record shows that the
transaction was deliberate and was done by
the petitioners themselves.

9. The burden of proving customer
liability lies upon the bank and the bank, in
its counter affidavit has placed passbook,
documents showing beneficiary addition by
petitioner no. 2, I.P. Address details of
petitioner no.2, time and debit transfer
details from the internet bank account of
the petitioner no.2, a document showing
password modification by the petitioner
no.2 to discharge its burden.

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid
record, it can be discerned that there has
been no embezzlement of funds as every
transaction was within the knowledge of
petitioners, therefore, the defence taken by
the petitioners is not fathomable in the eye
of law.

11. As far as the cases referred to by
the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
Supreme Court while dismissing the order
passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati
High Court has held that it is the duty of
the Bank to employ advanced technology
to prevent fraud. Pallabh Bhowmick
(Supra) is distinct from the present case as
in that case the amount was withdrawn
fraudulently and unauthorisedly without
being any negligence on the part of account
holder who promptly reported to the bank.
Therefore, account holder was entitled to zero
liabilty under RBI's circular.

12. The judgment of Bombay High
Court in Jaiprakash Kulkarni (Supra) will
also not apply to the present case as in that
case petitioner did not receive any intimation
with regard to the beneficiaries added to his
account either through sms or email,
therefore it was held that there was no
negligence on the part of the petitioner in that
case.

13. In summary, the aforesaid decisions
do not help the petitioners in any manner. On
the other hand, RBI circular also do not
provide shelter to the petitioner for garbing
personal transaction as cyber fraud. RBI
circular is to cover aspects of customer
protection, including the mechanism of
creating customer awareness on the risks and
responsibilities, and customer liability arising
in
specific
scenarios
of
unauthorized
electronic transactions. The pupose of this
circular is to act as a shield for customers
from fraudulent transactions and not as a
sword in the garb of personal transactions.

14. In light of the above reasoning, this
Court is of the view that neither the RBI
circular nor the judgment cited by the
petitioners apply to the present case. In fact,
there appears to be gross negligence on the
part of the petitioners and the case of a third
party hacking into their accounts is not
conclusively proved. Hence, this Court is of
the view that the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted. Ergo, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 882
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-C No. 1003005 of 2002

Smt. Amina ...Petitioner
Versus
Up Zila Adhikari Pratapgarh & Ors.
 ...Opp. Parties

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner: