Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B.SARAF, PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI
Suresh Chandra Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petition and petitioners' status. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments and claims by petitioners regarding embezzlement. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents' rebuttal on petitioners' claims. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis of transaction details. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. rbi circular on customer responsibility outlined. (Para 7) |
| 6. court's view on burden of proof and negligence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. analysis of legal precedents and their application. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 8. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
1. 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
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.
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.
Banks must prove customer negligence to deny liability for unauthorized transactions; mere downloading of an app does not constitute negligence.
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....
The burden of proof for unauthorized electronic banking transactions lies on the bank, emphasizing their accountability in cases of customer negligence and fraud.
The court established that under the RBI Circular, customers are entitled to zero liability for unauthorized transactions if reported within three working days, and limited liability if reported with....
The bank is liable for unauthorized transactions unless customer negligence is established, emphasizing the bank's responsibility to prevent fraud.
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....
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
