Delhi District Court
Punjab National Bank vs Dbs Bank India Limitederstwhile ... on 17 January, 2026
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.17
16:03:58
+0530
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH,
DISTRICT JUDGE-13, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ No.143/2023
Unique ID No.DLCT01-001988-2023
In the matter of:
1) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
Through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Udit Narayan Singh, Manager,
CDPC, Paharganj, New Delhi
Having Its CDPC Office At:
Centralized Draft Payment Centre (CDPC),
DB Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055
Having its Registered Office At:
Plot N0. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
Telephone No. 011-22779758,
Mobile: 7906424641
......... (Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) DBS BANK INDIA LIMITED
(Erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank)
Through Its Authorised Officer
Having Its Registered Office At:
GF:NOS. 11 &12; FF:NOS. 110 TO 115,
Capital Point BKS Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
Tel:-011-30418888
Having its Service Branch At:
Ground Floor, Express Towers,
Bank Of Baroda Building,
CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.1 / 17
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17
16:04:09 +0530
Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021
TEL:- 022-66388888
........... (Defendants)
Date of Institution : 07.02.2023.
Date of Judgment : 17.01.2026
-:JUDGMENT:-
Preface:-
1. Punjab National Bank engaged in the business of
banking and finance, having its registered office at Plot No. 4,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi and Centralized Draft Payment
Centre (CDPC) at D. B. Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi, has
approached the Court seeking recovery of Rs.4,96,580/- with
pendente lite and future interest @ 14.40% per annum.
Background:-
2. As averred in the plaint, encrypted image and MICR data of 04 cheques for total Rs.3,87,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) were received in the bank through Clearing House Interface (CHI) of the 'Cheque Truncation System' (CTS) of the National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI) and 'settlement files' were processed by debiting Current Account No.1913002100019447 of its customer GSPL India Gasnet Limited CA Compensation AC MBPL on the basis of encrypted image of the cheques forwarded on 15.01.2021, 14.01.2021, 18.01.2021 & 19.01.2021.
3. Cheque No.455885, 455897 & 455918 for Rs.97,200/-, Rs.98,100/- & Rs.95,200/- respectively were accordingly encashed CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.2 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17 16:04:17 +0530 and credited in Account No.0499301000037813 of Shiva Ray whereas cheque No.455908 for Rs.97,000/- was encashed and credited in Account No.0478301000013825 of Harish Chandra Prasad.
4. Later on, complaint was received from its customer GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL vide e-mail dated 20.01.2021 followed by letter dated 04.02.2021 and another letter dated 21.05.2021 informing about illegal and fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.33,74,700/- from its account through fake, forged & cloned cheques presented at different banks, including aforesaid 04 cheques for total Rs.3,87,500/- presented in DBS Bank India Limited which were encashed and credited in the account of Shiv Ray and Harish Chandra Prasad.
5. Matter was immediately reported to Fraud Risk Management Cell (FMRC) for further course of action and e-mail/letter dated 14.06.2021 followed by another letter dated 08.07.2021 among several communications were issued calling upon defendant bank to freeze Account No.0499301000037813 of Shiva Ray and Account No.0478301000013825 of Harish Chandra Prasad.
6. Defendant bank, in addition, was requested to provide- (i) forged/cloned cheques presented in the bank by Shiva Ray and Harish Chandra Prasad; (ii) CCTV footage; (iii) Account Opening Details; (iv) KYC compliances of account holders/beneficiaries AND to refund Rs.3,87,500/- which was illegally and unauthorisedly debited from the Current Account of GIGL CA CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.3 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH TARUN Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.17
16:04:26
+0530
Compensation AC MBPL in favour of Shiva Ray and Harish Chandra Prasad.
7. All 35 cheques, including original of disputed cheques, in the custody of GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL were collected from the customer on 09.07.2021 and criminal complaint of cheating, fraud and forgery was lodged by the CDPC Office of plaintiff bank with D.C.P. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police on 13.07.2021 as per instruction/letter received from Fraud Risk Management Cell.
8. FIR No. 3015Complaint.BR/DCP/EOW was registered with EOW, Delhi Police, Mandir Marg on 02.08.2021 and Fraud Risk Management Cell (FMRC) of plaintiff bank in the meantime concluded about fraud committed in clearing 35 cheques from the Current Account of GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL including forged/cloned cheques for Rs.3,87,500/- collected by defendant bank for its customers Shiva Ray and Harish Chandra Prasad.
9. Final Investigation Report and Technical Committee Report prepared and placed before the Circle Head, New Delhi were communicated to CDPC Office of plaintiff bank vide e-mail dated 31.08.2021 followed by letter dated 29.06.2022 addressed to Chief Manager, Fraud, Cell, New Delhi recommending to settle the Current Account of its valuable customer which was eventually settled by refunding the amount vide Transfer Voucher and e-mail dated 30.09.2022 was sent to Sector-16, Gandhinagar Branch, Gujarat informing about settlement of claim of Rs.33,74,700/- in the account of GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL.
CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.4 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17
16:04:36 +0530
Case of the Plaintiff:
10. It is alleged that DBC Bank India Ltd. which was dealing with the - (i) opening of account of its customers AND (ii) collection of their cheques and payments has failed to observe due diligence and professionalism as required especially during verification, scrutinization and various tests to check the authenticity of cheques presented for encashment in compliance of various Guidelines and Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India resulting in illegal and unauthorised encashment of forged/cloned cheques for Rs.3,87,500/- collected by defendant bank for its customers/fraudsters.
11. It is further alleged that onus of due diligence has shifted to Presenting/Collecting bank to verify and ensure that instrument deposited is genuine and whether it is being collected for a bonafide customer after flow of physical cheques from one bank to another has been stopped and replaced by uploading electronic/encrypted image and associated MICR data of cheques in the Clearing House Interface (CHI) of the Cheque Truncation System. Defendant DBS Bank India Ltd. which collected payment on behalf of its account holders has therefore failed to enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) norms in letter and spirit and also failed to observe all precautions expected from a prudent banker under Explanation II of Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which reads as under:
"[Explanation II - It shall be the duty of the banker who receives payment based on the electronic image of a truncated cheque held by him to verify the prima facie genuineness of the cheque to be truncated and any fraud, forgery or tampering CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.5 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17 16:04:44 +0530 apparent on the face of the instrument that can be verified with due diligence and ordinary care.] (Ins by Act 55 of 2002 , S.6 w.e.f. 06.02.2003)"
12. Finally, it is urged that defendant instead of co-operating to resolve the matter despite numerous letters requesting it - (i) to provide information/KYC details, etc. AND (ii) to freeze the accounts of its customers/fraudsters has repeatedly made false representations that forged instruments bearing No. 455885, 455897, 455918 & 455908 were valid cheques duly signed by GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL and is therefore liable to refund Rs. 4,96,580/- which includes (i) Rs.3,87,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) in lieu of forged cheques/instruments No. 455885, 455897, 455918 & 455908 AND
(ii) Rs.1,09,080/- (Rupees One Lac Nine Thousand Eighty Only) towards interest @ 14.40% per annum.
Case of the defendant:-
13. Defendant DBS Bank India Ltd., per contra, has disputed liability to refund the amount with interest by insisting due diligence in uploading image of disputed cheques presented by its customers which were encashed by the plaintiff bank on the basis of their scanned image forwarded by the 'Clearing House Interface'. It is submitted that entire transaction was duly verified and approved by the plaintiff which is now alleging that cheques were forged and cloned.
14. It is further submitted that Punjab National Bank in paras 7, 10 & 12 of the plaint has alleged about similar nature of fraud and negligence in respect of 35 cheques presented and encashed through CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.6 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17 16:04:51 +0530 various banks which establishes negligence of plaintiff bank which could not realize the fraud and continued to clear 35 cheques of its customer without proper verification.
15. Finally, it is urged that defendant DBS Bank India Ltd. is not liable to reimburse any amount against disputed cheques duly encashed as per procedure of CTS Cheque Clearance as police investigation is still pending and allegations against defendant are yet to be established for insisting involvement of officials of the plaintiff bank.
16. Averments in the plaint have been denied in corresponding paras of reply on merit and following issues were settled on 13.12.2024 after completion of pleadings:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
4,96,580/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 14.40% per annum with costs of the suit? (OPP)
2. Relief.
Trial:-
17. Sh. Udit Narayan Singh, Manager, Punjab National Bank, substituted in place of Sh. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Manager, CDPC, Paharganj, New Delhi, examined as PW-1 has inter alia deposed about illegal and unauthorised encashment of 04 cheques presented in DBS Bank India Ltd. by its customers/fraudsters Shiva Ray and Harish Chandra Prasad.
18. He has also relied upon following documents in support of prayer seeking refund of amount paid by defendant to its customer.
(i) Certified copy of POA in favor of Udit Narayan Singh Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.7 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17 16:05:00 +0530
(ii) Certified copy of POA in favor of Pramod Kumar Dubey Mark-I.
(iii) True copy of encrypted images of cheque Nos.
455885, 455897, 455918 & 455908 with corresponding certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/2 (colly).
(iv) Printout of E-mail dated 20.01.2021 and true copy of letters dated 04.02.2021 and 21.05.2021 Ex. PW-1/3 (colly).
(v) True copy of letters dated 14.06.2021 & 08.07.2021 Ex. PW-1/4 (colly).
(vi) Printout of e-mails dated 16.06.2021, 17.06.2021 and 05.07.2021 with common certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/5 (colly).
(v) True copy of the letter dated 09.07.2021 Ex. PW-1/6.
(vi) Original four nos. canceled/original cheques bearing nos. 455885, 455897, 455918 & 455908 handed over to plaintiff bank by GSPL India Gasnet Limited Ex. PW-1/7 (colly).
(vii) True copy of letter dated 13.07.2021 issued by FRMC to CDPC office at plaintiff bank Ex. PW-1/8.
(viii) True copy of EOW Complaint dated 13.07.2021 Ex.
PW-1/9.
(ix) True copy of office letter addressed to DCP, Central Dist. New Delhi by the ACP Ex. PW-1/10.
CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.8 / 17 Digitally signedTARUN by TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date: 2026.01.17 16:05:07 +0530
(x) Printout of email dated 31.08.2021 supported by a common Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/11.
(xi) True copy of letter dated 07.09.2021 Ex. PW-1/12.
(xii) True copies of these letters dated 24.11.2021 Ex.
PW-1/13 (Colly).
(xiii) True copy of the letter dated 29.06.2022 Ex. PW-1/14.
(xiv) True copies of Transfer Voucher dated 30.09.2022 and an email dated 30.07.2022 addressed to Sector-16, Gandhinagar, Gujarat Branch of Plaintiff bank supported by a common certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/15 (Colly).
(xv) The office copies of legal notices alongwith postal receipts Ex. PW-1/16 (Colly).
(xvi) A duly certified copy of statement of accrued interest alongwith a certificate u/s 2A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/17 (Colly).
19. Cross-examination of PW-1 has been recorded and plaintiff's evidence was closed on 09.04.2025.
20. Sh. Sachin Sharma, Senior Officer, DBS Bank India Ltd., examined as DW-1 on the other hand has prayed for dismissal of suit by disputing - (i) territorial jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi as disputed cheques were issued and cleared by Gandhinagar Branch of Punjab National Bank AND (ii) Liability to refund Rs. 3,87,500/- with interest as defendant cannot be held liable for negligence of plaintiff CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.9 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH TARUN Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.17 16:05:14 +0530 bank which failed to detect fraud resulting in encashment of 35 cheques. He has relied upon following documents:-
(i) Copy of authorization letter (POA/BR) Ex. DW-1/1;
(ii) Copy of amalgamation scheme 2020 Mark DW-1/2;
(iii) The account statement of both account holder Mr. Shiva Ray and Mr. Harish Chandra Mark DW-1/3 and Mark DW-1/4;
(iv) The affidavit u/s 63 of BSA Ex. DW-1/5.
21. Cross-examination of DW-1 has been recorded and defendant's evidence was closed on 22.07.2025. Discussion & Findings:-
22. Advocate Sh. Sayak Bandyopahdyay for Punjab National Bank would pray for recovery of Rs.4,96,580/- which includes - (a) Rs.3,87,500/- (Rupees Three Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) refunded to its customer against illegal and unauthorized withdrawal on the basis of forged/cloned cheques AND (b) Rs.1,09,080/- (Rupees One Lac Nine Thousand Eighty Only) towards interest @ 14.40% per annum by adverting to Procedural Guidelines for Cheque Truncation System (CTS) dealing with - (i) Storage of Physical Instrument in case of disputes, complaints, reconciliation, etc.; (ii) Preliminary Verification by the Presenting Bank in congruence with Explanation II of Section 131 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (iii) Booklet on Cheque Truncation System issued by NPCI & (iv) CTS-2010 Guidance Note issued by Reserve Bank of India on the Standardization and Enhancement of Security Features in Cheque Forms.
CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.10 / 17 Digitally signedTARUN by TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date: 2026.01.17 16:05:29 +0530
23. It is submitted that - (i) Account No.1913002100019447 of GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL Section 7 Haryana AND (ii) Account No.1913002100019456 of GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL Section 6B Haryana have total eight (08) signatories and encrypted scanned image of disputed cheque Nos. 455885, 455897, 455918 & 455908 uploaded in the Clearing House Interface were cleared by Drawee/Punjab National Bank after verifying - (i) Date of cheque (ii) Account Number of drawer (iii) Amount in words and figures AND (iv) Signature of one of the authorized signatory namely Mr. Mohinder Singh Dhankhar.
24. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff would also urge that onus of due diligence has shifted to the Presenting Bank as provided under Explanation II of Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 whereby Collecting Bank is required to enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) norms in letter & spirit and observe all precautions which a prudent banker does under normal circumstances i.e - (i) to check the apparent tenor of the instrument; (ii) physical feel of the instrument; (iii) any tampering visible to the naked eye with reasonable care; (iv) scrutinizing and conducting various tests (UV Ray test) to check the authenticity of the cheque presented for encashment.
25. It is, therefore, contended that DBS Bank India Ltd. "was/still is" in possession of forged/cloned cheques which were scanned and uploaded for processing without due diligence and has failed to establish its bonafides by intentionally not filing disputed cheques as DW1 Sh. Sachin Sharma during cross-examination recorded on CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.11 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17 16:05:37 +0530 21.07.2025 has fairly conceded: "As per RBI Regulations, outward clearing cheques are preserved for 10 years. The above mentioned cheques are supposed to be preserved with our bank."
26. Advocate Sh. Aditya Sinha and Sh. Ashish Mishra for defendant DBS Bank India Ltd. on the other hand have vehemently urged for dismissal of suit by contending that Punjab National Bank failed to verify its customer's name on the cheques as name of Account Holder GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL Section 6B Haryana mentioned in encrypted image of scanned cheques is different from customer's name GIGL CA Compensation AC MBPL Section 7 Haryana mentioned in the original cheques filed on judicial record.
27. It is submitted that division of responsibility between Presenting Bank and Drawee Bank has been clearly mentioned in NPCI CTS Project Ecosystem Document and role of Presenting Bank is limited to - (i) scanning the cheque, (ii) ensuring image clarity AND (iii) transmitting the image and MICR data with digital signatures. No obligation, therefore, exists on the part of Presenting Bank to verify signatures or compare the instrument with customer's specimen which is exclusively available with the Punjab National Bank.
28. Drawee Bank, on the other hand, has access to its customer's specimen signatures, name, cheque issuance history, mandate instructions, fraud-trigger system, etc hence duty of signature verification, fraud detection and decision either to honour or return the instrument has been exclusively assigned to the drawee by NPCI CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.12 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH TARUN Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.17 16:05:44 +0530 Guidelines which also empower the Drawee/Plaintiff to requisition the original instrument if it has any doubt regarding genuineness of cheque sent for clearance.
29. It is, therefore, contended that role of Collecting/Presenting Bank is limited to scanning and transmitting the cheque image & MICR data as per - (i) RBI Master Circular on CTS & (ii) NPCI Procedural Guidelines and Drawee Bank alone verifies signatures and decides on payment.
30. Aforesaid contention of DBS Bank India Ltd., however, is in the teeth of following provisions of "CTS Process- Do's And Dont's for Banks" laying down duty of the Collecting Bank qua cheques presented for encashment.
Dos for Outward Clearing
1. XXXXXXXXXX
2. XXXXXXXXXX
3. " Verify the genuineness of the cheque this is very important as per the amended NI act the presenting bank is responsible for the genuineness of the cheques. The banks might introduce slab wise verification, for higher amounts it is suggested to use UV lamps for verification.
4. The cheques printed with CTS 2010 standards will display the word VOID if a Xerox copy is presented by the fraudsters.
32. Chapter 3 of the Procedural Guidelines for Cheque Truncation System (CTS) dealing with - "Procedure at the Presenting Branch"
inter alia lays down provisions for 'Preliminary Verification' and CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.13 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH Date: YOGESH 2026.01.17 16:05:50 +0530 'Storage of Physical Instruments' for required statutory period in case of disputes, complaints, reconciliation, etc.
33. Para 3.1 apropos 'Preliminary Verification' AND Para 3.21 regarding 'Storage of Physical Instruments' in Chapter 3 of the Procedural Guidelines for Cheque Truncation System (CTS) are extracted below for reference:-
"3.1 Preliminary Verification As the payment processing is done on the basis of images, the onus of due diligence shifts to the Presenting Bank, as provided under explanation II to Section 131 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The member banks have to enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) norms in letter and spirit. The banks should observe all precautions which a prudent banker does under normal circumstances, e.g., to check the apparent tenor of the instrument, physical feel of the instrument, any tampering visible to the naked eye with reasonable care, etc. For enhanced attention, based on exceptions, the banks may employ suitable risk management techniques like scrutiny of high value transactions, limit based checking by officials, new accounts alerts, etc. The Presenting bank takes full responsibility for collecting on behalf of the intended payee and exercises due diligence as per the conditions laid down in the amended Negotiable Instruments Act."
"3.21 Storage of Physical Instruments The presenting banks need to put in place arrangements to physically archive the cleared instruments for ready retrieval, whenever required at a later date. The physical instruments must be stored for the required statutory period, as mentioned in para 2.6."CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.14 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH
TARUN Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.17
16:05:56
+0530
34. Aforesaid provisions, therefore, clearly lay down that Presenting/Collecting Bank is responsible for the genuineness of the cheque and should observe all precautions which a prudent banker does under normal circumstances, e.g., to check the apparent tenor of the instrument, physical feel of the instrument, any tampering visible to the naked eye with reasonable care, etc. AND also ensure that xerox copy with 'VOID' pantograph has not been presented by any fraudster.
35. Further, Collecting Bank is also required - (i) to enforce KYC (Know Your Customer) norms in letter & spirit AND (ii) preserve physical filled cheques for 08 years as mandated by Banking Companies Preservation of Records Rules, 1985 in case of dispute, complaints, reconciliation, etc.
36. PW-1 Udit Narayan Singh, Manager, Punjab National Bank during cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant has testified that date of cheque, amount in words and figure, account number and signature of account holder are checked by the bank as per RBI Guidelines and denied suggestion that mandatory features including bank logo, CTS 2010, watermark, microcode, void pantograph and micro-lettering were not checked by plaintiff bank.
37. DW-1 Sh. Sachin Sharma, Senior Officer, DBS Bank India Ltd. on the other hand has fairly conceded of being not aware whether KYC compliance of customers Shiva Ray and Harish Chandra Prasad was done at the time of opening their account and also deposed that outward clearing cheques are preserved for a CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.15 / 17 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17 16:06:02 +0530 period of 10 years as per RBI Guidelines but could neither confirm nor produce disputed cheques.
38. Judgments titled R. Ramesh Vs. Vijaya Bank 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3751; (ii) UCO Bank Vs. M/s. D. Nath & Co. & Ors.
2011 SCC OnLine Del 258 AND (iii) Canara Bank Vs. Canara Sales Corporation And Others (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 666 relied upon by Ld. Counsel for defendant for contending that drawee bank alone bears the risk of paying on forged signature will not apply to the facts of the present case as aforesaid judgments were delivered in case where the customer (Account Holder) had approached Court seeking refund of amount wrongly debited from his account on the basis of forged signature.
39. Defendant DBS Bank India Ltd. having withheld disputed cheque No. 455885, 455897, 455918 & 455908 which were scanned and uploaded in the Clearing House Interface without observing all precautions to ensure that xerox copy with 'VOID' pantograph was not presented by its customer is responsible for illegal and unauthorized encashment of cloned cheques for total Rs. 3,87,500/- as per Para 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the Procedural Guidelines for Cheque Truncation System (CTS) laying provision for 'Preliminary Verification' of the instrument read with CTS Do's and Dont's for Banks issued by NPCI stating that Presenting Bank is responsible for the genuineness of the cheques.
40. DBS Bank India Ltd. registered as Bank under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its Registered Office at Ground Floor No. 11 & 12, Capitol Point, Baba Kharag Singh Marg, CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.16 / 17 Connaught Place, New Delhi is also precluded from disputing jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi.
41. Though recovery of Rs. 4,96,580/- has been sought by Punjab National Bank which includes Rs.3,87,500/- in lieu of forged cheques & Rs.1,09,080/- towards interest @ 14.40% per annum however Advocate Sh. Sayak Bandyopahdyay for plaintiff has fairly conceded about settlement of current account of its customer by crediting the amount wrongly debited on the basis of forged/cloned cheques without any interest.
42. Plaintiff's suit is therefore decreed for a sum of Rs.3,87,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum along with cost of the suit.
43. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
44. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court by TARUN
on 17.01.2026. TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.17
16:06:12 +0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
District Judge-13 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS DJ 143/2023 Punjab National Bank vs. DBS Bank India Ltd. Page No.17 / 17