Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Pallabh Bhowmick – Respondent
The lower court found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the transactions were unauthorized or fraudulent. It held that the petitioner was negligent in safeguarding their bank details and did not establish that the bank had failed in its duty to prevent such transactions (!) .
ORDER
1. The Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the Intra-Court appeal filed by the Bank has observed in Para 42 as under:-
2. We are in complete agreement with the observations as contained in Para 42 of the impugned judgment referred to above.
3. All that the High Court has said is that the original petitioner who suffered the loss was not negligent in any manner. All transactions relating to the account of the respondent No.1 – herein maintained with the petitioner - Bank were found to be unauthorized and fraudulent. It is the responsibility of the bank so far as such unauthorized and fraudulent transa
The bank is liable for unauthorized transactions unless customer negligence is established, emphasizing the bank's responsibility to prevent fraud.
Fraudulent transaction of Bank - On completion of investigation if it is established that the fraud took place purely due to the negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondent no. ....
Banks must prove customer negligence to deny liability for unauthorized transactions; mere downloading of an app does not constitute negligence.
The court affirmed that customers have zero liability for unauthorized transactions if reported within three working days, as per RBI guidelines, and found the bank liable for failing to secure the a....
Banks must ensure robust security measures to protect customers from cyber fraud, and failure to do so may result in liability for unauthorized transactions.
Writ under Article 226 maintainable against private scheduled banks to enforce RBI guidelines; customer zero liability in unauthorized electronic transactions from third-party breaches like SIM swapp....
Limited Liability of a Customer - Unauthorized aforesaid banking transactions in the bank account of petitioner as per Clause VI of the aforequoted policy of R.B.I., petitioner is entitled to zero li....
The burden of proof in unauthorized electronic banking transactions lies with the bank, but customers can be liable if they were negligent, as shown in deliberate self-initiated transactions.
Bank is bound to send SMS to customers regarding ATM transactions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
