Madras High Court
M/S.Dadha Pharma Llp vs Reserve Bank Of India on 12 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
2025:MHC:1390
WP No. 413 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 413 of 2024
1. M/s.Dadha Pharma LLP
(formerly Known As M/s.Dadha Pharma Private Limited)
Rep By Its Authorised Signatory Mr.D. Rahul Bafna
Having Its Registered Office At
New No. 187/ Old No.121, St.Marys Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai- 018.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Reserve Bank Of India
Rep By The Governor,
No.06, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 100 001.
2.The State
Rep By Commissioner Of Police,
Team XI, Central Crime Branch,
Egmore,
Chennai- 600 008.
3.M/s.Axis Bank Limited
Having Its Branch Office At
No.113, G.N. Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai- 017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm )
WP No. 413 of 2024
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
rd
To direct the 3 Respondent Bank to recredit the Sum of Rs.16,15,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand Only) along with interest and
damages fixed by this Court, to the Current Account bearing number
014010300007962 of the Petitioner Company, operated in the 3rd Respondent
Bank.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Ferdinand for M/s.B&S Legal
For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2
No appearance for R 3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to recredit/restore the amount of Rs.16,15,000/-, which is said to have been illegally siphoned from the current account of the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they are operating the current account with the 3rd respondent, since the year 2009. A sum of Rs.25,80,000/- was siphoned off illegally from the petitioner's account on 24.06.2011. Immediately, the petitioner sent a complaint on the same day to the 3rd respondent, intimating the same and seeking a refund of the entire amount. Simultaneously, a complaint was also given to the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024
3. The further case of the petitioner is that an FIR came to be registered by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai City in Crime No.312 of 2012 on 25.05.2012 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 419, and 420 IPC. On completion of the investigation, a police report has been filed before the Special Court for CCB CBCID cases, Chennai, confirming that the money has been siphoned from the current account of the petitioner. Out of the total sum of Rs.25,80,000/-, Rs.9,65,000/- was credited to bank account of the petitioner, and the balance of Rs.16,15,000/- was transferred to different bank accounts in different places. When the same was verified, they were all found to be bogus addresses. Ultimately, the police had to drop the case since they were unable to detect the accused persons.
4. The petitioner has relied upon the circular of Reserve Bank of India, dated 06.07.2017 and sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent to recredit/restore the amount of Rs.16,15,000/- to the current account of the petitioner.
5. Heard Mr.D.Ferdinand, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 2nd respondent.
6. It is relevant to take note of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 India. In Clause 6(ii) of the RBI Circular, it is stated that in cases of third-party breaches, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but elsewhere in the system, if the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorized transaction, the bank must act upon it and ensure that the customer has zero liability due to such unauthorized transaction. It is also relevant to take note of Clause 9 of the notification, which makes it clear that on being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic transaction to the customer's account within ten working days from the date of such notification by the customer.
7. Different High Courts had dealt with the very same issue and it will be relevant to take note of the same, 7.1. The Delhi High Court in the case of Hare Ram Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others reported in MANU/DE/8030/2024 had an occasion to deal with a very similar case and it was held as follows:
“32. In the light of the aforesaid regulations, it is evident that the security protocols such as '2FA' or OTP verification had been breached by a simple 'malware' deployed by the cyber fraudsters. Evidently, the online banking service of the petitioner was linked with his mobile number, which was being used to authenticate his banking transactions, and the security apparatus of the respondent Bank failed to detect any unusual logging activity from a different https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 Internet Protocol Address that was being used by the fraudsters. It has to be presumed that it is on account of the failure on the part of the bank to put in place a system which prevents such withdrawals, that the petitioner suffered monetary losses.
33. Lastly, it is well established under the Common Law, that funds in a bank account belong to the bank, but the bank acts as an agent for the principal (the customer). Consequently, the bank cannot refuse to process an online transfer if it appears to be authorized by the customer, however, upon detecting fraud, the bank has an implied duty to exercise reasonable care and take prompt action.
Unhesitatingly, there was patent deficiency in services on the part of the bank, inasmuch as the response of the bank was lukewarm, defective, and not prompt. The respondent No. 2 i.e., SBI failed to take immediate measures to take up the issue with the other REs to whom the online payment had been remitted.” 7.2. The Kerala High Court also had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of Tony Enterprises and Others Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others reported in MANU/KE/4164/2019. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder, “12. The Reserve Bank of India issued a master circular dated 6.7.2017 protecting customers in unauthorised electronic banking transactions. The circular states that a customer has zero liability in the following events:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 WPC 28823/2017 & 28824/2017 "(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 whether 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".
The events referred therein are only illustration. It cannot be said the list as above is exhaustive. The circular proceeds based on assumed facts and circumstances. It refers to contributory fraud, negligence deficiency etc. It does not indicate about liability when there is a dispute to the events as above. In that background, the question also arises as to the remedy of the bank to recover the amount under the 'disputed transaction'.
13. Banking transaction is both contractual and fiduciary. The bank owes a duty to the customer. Both have a mutual obligation to one and another. The bank, therefore, is bound to protect the interest of the customer in all circumstances. The technology as adverted has its own defect. Online transactions are vulnerable. Though the bank might have devised a secured socket layer connection for online banking purpose WPC 28823/2017 & 28824/2017 which is encrypted(1), this security encryption can be hacked using different methods. The welknown hacking modes are phishing, trojans, session hijacking, key logger, etc. The public WiFi is the easiest target for hackers. NORTON, a leading cyber security provider in its web https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 page refers to the risk of using public WiFi. The unencrypted network in public WiFi allows hackers to collect data easily. WiFi snooping (2) using software allows hackers to access everything online while the user is active in online. The possibilities of fetching data relating to the banking account while the customer using online transaction, by the hackers, cannot be overruled in banking transaction. The bank can identify fraud risk and also devise mechanisms to protect customers. There are counter technologies to identify location behaviour of operators also. It is for the bank to secure the safety of online banking transactions.
14. Defining a 'disputed transaction':
A 'disputed transaction' in this context has to be understood as a transaction prima facie tainted by fraud. Classifying transaction as such would depend upon the nature of allegations and investigation carried out in this regard. "No man is bound by a bargain into which he has been induced by fraud to enter, because assent is necessary to a valid contract." (See KERR On the Law of Fraud and Mistake 7 th Edition). The author further states that the transaction so induced is not void but only voidable at the election of the party defrauded.
Classification of such transaction must be with reference to the events identified by the RBI. That means the very validity of the transaction is at stake. A mere challenge made by the customer would not be sufficient. If such a challenge is supported by the report of an independent investigation pursued by the Police or other such agencies, that would prima facie establish that it is a 'disputed transaction'. If the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 report indicates that the online transaction was carried out by some other person other than the customer or on his behalf, that has to be treated as a 'disputed transaction'.
15. Remedy of the Bank:
The bank has a remedy by way of filing a civil suit for claiming the loss suffered in the transaction and to recover it from the person responsible. In common law jurisdiction fraud is a tort and considered as a civil wrong. It is also a penal offence under the relevant statutory provisions. The circular of the RBI presumes in such circumstances, 'zero liability' to the customer. A recent circular issued by the RBI, RBI/2018-19/101, dated 4.1.2019, limits the liability of the customer. It reads thus:
"Limited liability of a customer: A customer's liability arising out of an unauthorised payment transaction will be limited to: Customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic payment transactions through a PPI S.N Particulars Maximum Liability of o Customer
(a) Contributory fraud / negligence / Zero deficiency on the part of Zero the PPI issuer, including PPI-MTS issuer (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer)
(b) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the PPI issuer nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the PPI issuer regarding the unauthorised payment https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 Customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic payment transactions through a PPI transaction. The per transaction customer liability in such cases will depend on the number of days lapsed between the receipt of transaction communication by the customer from the PPI issuer and the reporting of unauthorised transaction by the customer to the PPI issuer -
i.Within three days Zero
ii.Within four to seven days# Transaction value or
₹10,000/- per
transaction,
whichever is lower
iii.Beyond seven days# As per the Board
approved policy of
the PPI issuer
(c) In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such
as where he / she has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he / she reports the unauthorised transaction to the PPI issuer. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the PPI issuer.
(d) PPI issuers may also, at their discretion, decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic payment transactions even in cases of customer negligence.
# The number of days mentioned above shall be counted excluding the date of receiving the communication from the PPI issuer.
The above shall be clearly communicated to all PPI holders." The circular as above does not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 foreclose the remedy of the bank to proceed against the fraudsters and also against customers or any other persons or entity involved. It also does not prevent a customer from proceeding against the bank through a civil suit if he was unable to lodge complaint within the time as provided in the circular. Civil rights of the parties if otherwise available are not lost based on the circular, though the circular has statutory backing. The circular only indicates the nature of the action to be taken by the bank when there are complaints relating to an unauthorised payment transaction. The bank WPC 28823/2017 & 28824/2017 also cannot recover the amount from the customer stating that the customer was negligent in protecting his personal details. If such personal details were exposed due to the laches on account of the action on the part of the customer, it can at the best be treated as negligence. To what extent the customer can be made responsible for such negligence is a matter of probe and adjudication through a civil suit.
16. It is profitable to refer to the observations of the House of Lords in London Joint Stock Bank, Limited v. Macmillan and Arthur [1918 AC 777] which is as follows:
"As the customer and the banker are under a contractual relation in this matter, it appears obvious that in drawing a cheque the customer is bound to take usual and reasonable precautions to prevent forgery. Crime, is indeed, a very serious matter, but everyone knows that crime is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 uncommon. If the cheque is drawn in such a way as to facilitate or almost to invite an increase in the amount by forgery if the cheque should get into the hands of a dishonest person, forgery is not a remote but a very natural consequence of negligence of this description."
....
20. Thus, it is clear that the bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a 'disputed transaction'. The bank can recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such WPC 28823/2017 & 28824/2017 transaction, independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such 'disputed transaction'. RBI circular presumes the innocence of the customer in such given circumstances. However, this innocence can be controverted. The onus falls on the bank to prove otherwise.
21. In the present case, the police investigation prima facie established that fraud has been committed. The beneficiaries hail from West Bengal. There is nothing on record to establish any connivance on the part of the petitioners. The police investigation also would reveal that the accused obtained duplicate SIM cards by using fake identity cards. It was also brought out that the beneficiaries immediately withdrew the money from their bank accounts at West Bengal. In such circumstances, the transactions can be treated as 'disputed transactions'. These transactions would fall within the sweep of zero https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 liability as referred to in RBI Circular. The remedy of the bank in such circumstances is to approach the civil court and recover the amount from the persons who were responsible for such transactions. WPC 28823/2017 & 28824/2017
22. As have come out of the pleadings, amounts have been debited from the loan account of the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be held responsible for such debit without establishing through the civil court that they are responsible for such withdrawal from the loan account. If any amount deposited by the petitioners also have been transferred, in the same manner, that shall be restored to the petitioners without any delay at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These directions are issued without prejudice to the bank to proceed against the persons who are responsible for these transactions through civil court. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 7.3. This Court also had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of ICICI Bank Limited and Others Vs. Uma Shankar Sivasubramanian and Others reported in MANU/TN/8173/2022. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder, “20. In a judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in MANU/KE/4164/2019 [Tony Enterprises,
-Vs- Reserve Bank of India, and others (W.P(C) No.28823 of 2017) and Cherian C.Karippaparampil Vs. Reserve Bank of India, (W.P(C) No.28824 of 2017)] a learned Single Judge of the Court was considering a case of a SIM swapping fraud to gain https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 access to bank accounts of the petitioners therein and to withdraw money from their bank accounts. The customers who were the victims of this fraud had moved the Court seeking a declaration to the effect that they have zero liability to the Bank in the light of the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions had availed the online banking facility offered by the Bank. The respondent-Bank had taken a defence that the login ID, password and telecom number are only known to the petitioners and that without laches on their part, fraudsters would not gain access to their accounts. In the course of the discussion, the learned Judge has discussed the master circular dated 06.07.2017 protecting customers in unauthorised electronic banking transactions. The circular states as follows:-
"12. The Reserve Bank of India issued a master circular dated 6.7.2017 protecting customers in unauthorised electronic banking transactions. The circular states that a customer has zero liability 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 whether 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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 The learned Judge observed that the banking transaction is both contractual and fiduciary and discussed the obligation cast upon a Bank qua its customer.
"14. Banking transaction is both contractual and fiduciary. The bank owes a duty to the customer. Both have a mutual obligation to one and another. The bank, therefore, is bound to protect the interest of the customer in all circumstances. The technology as adverted has its own defect. Online transactions are vulnerable. Though the bank might have devised a secured socket layer connection for online banking purpose which is encrypted , this security encryption can be hacked using different methods. The welknown hacking modes are phishing, trojans, session hijacking, key logger, etc. The public WiFi is the easiest target for hackers. NORTON, a leading cyber security provider in its web page refers to the risk of using public WiFi. The unencrypted network in public WiFi allows hackers to collect data easily. WiFi snooping using software allows hackers to access everything online while the user is active in online. The possibilities of fetching data relating to the banking account while the customer using online transaction, by the hackers, cannot be overruled in banking transaction. The bank can identify fraud risk and also devise mechanisms to protect customers. There are counter https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 technologies to identify location behaviour of operators also. It is for the bank to secure the safety of online banking transactions. Defining a ‘disputed transaction’:
15. A ‘disputed transaction’ in this context has to be understood as a transaction prima facie tainted by fraud.
Ultimately, the learned Judge held that the amounts withdrawn from the petitioner's account has to be restored to them without prejudice to the bankers right to proceed against the persons who are responsible for the disputed transactions through a civil court.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 124 [Amitabha Dasgupta Vs. United Bank of India and Others] was considering a case where the Bank had broken open the locker of the appellant therein for non-payment of rents and subsequently, the locker had been reallocated to another customer. The appellant therein had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum ('District Forum'). The District Forum had allowed the complaint and this was confirmed in part by the State Commission. The revision against the order of the State Commission was dismissed and the National Commission accepted the State Commission's finding on the limited jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate on the recovery of the contents of the locker. Therefore, the customer had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Judges had in very great detail discussed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 the duty and care that a Bank has to exercise with regard to Locker Management and the kind of records that have to be maintained. The learned Judges had set out some of the procedures that have to be followed by the Bankers while allocating and operating the lockers. The learned Judges found fault with the Bank for having opened the locker without any prior notice to the customer. They had observed as follows:-
"breaking open of the locker was in blatant disregard to the responsibilities that the bank owed to the customer as a service provider"
and had made the following observations regarding a Bank's duty in the light of the advancing technology in conclusion:-
"55. Before concluding, we would like to make a few observations on the importance of the subject matter of the present appeal. With the advent of globalization, banking institutions have acquired a very significant role in the life of the common man. Both domestic and international economic transactions within the country have increased multiple folds. Given that we are steadily moving towards a cashless economy, people are hesitant to keep their liquid assets at home as was the case earlier. Thus, as is evident from the rising demand for such services, lockers have become an essential service provided by every banking institution. Such services may be availed of by citizens as well as by foreign nationals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 Moreover, due to rapid gains in technology, we are now transitioning from dual key- operated lockers to electronically operated lockers. In the latter system, though the customer may have partial access to the locker through passwords or ATM pin, etc., they are unlikely to possess the technological know-how to control the operation of such lockers. On the other hand, there is the possibility that miscreants may manipulate the technologies used in these systems to gain access to the lockers without the customers' knowledge or consent. Thus the customer is completely at the mercy of the bank, which is the more resourceful party, for the protection of their assets."
In the instant case, the Bank even after coming to know that the account of the complainant has been tampered / manipulated and a fraudulent transaction has taken place did not take any steps to independently lodge a complaint against the 5th respondent into whose account the money had been transferred. In this age of advancement in technology where predators are waiting in the wings in the virtual world as the whole world is connected through digitalization, the role of the Bank towards protecting the interests of its customer assumes greater significance. A strong cyber security is therefore the order of the day and Banks should not only provide it but educate its customers on the potential threats. In a country like ours where the bulk of the citizenry are illiterate, this becomes all the more necessary. In an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 article “Cyber world:
Advantages and its Emerging Threat” the writer has quoted from the National Crime Records Bureau to state that in the year 2020-2021 alone 50,030 cyber crimes were reported and in India more than 2200 cyber – attacks are committed per day. The figures are mind boggling which makes it imperative for the Banks offering online banking facilities to enhance their cyber security and rush to take steps to mitigate the loss that a customer may suffer on account of such cyber attacks. In the case on hand unfortunately the Bank has sadly failed to take steps in this regard.
22. Therefore, from the above discussion, there is a clear breach of trust as well. The authorities below have at length discussed the manner in which the complainant had been deprived of his money and why the respondent-Bank should be held responsible. I see no reason to overturn this decision and consequently, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.”
8. It is clear from the above judgments that the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is binding on the bank, and wherever the bank has been notified regarding the siphoning of amounts from the account maintained by the customer within the time prescribed, it is the duty of the bank to restore the amount that was unauthorisedly siphoned from the bank account. The Reserve Bank of India has made it clear that the same has to be done without waiting for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 settlement of insurance claim, if any.
9. As rightly held by this Court in the case of ICICI Bank Limited referred supra, in this age of technological advancement, where predators are waiting in the virtual world to siphon off amounts from bank accounts that are already operated online, the customer must have some assurance that in such instances, their hard-earned money is restored back to their bank account. If this is not done, it will jeopardize the entire online banking system, and customers will lose confidence in maintaining online accounts with banks.
10. In the light of the above discussions, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to act upon the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India and restore /recredit the amount to the tune of Rs.16,15,000/- which was siphoned from the current account of the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
12-06-2025 gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 To
1.Reserve Bank Of India Rep By The Governor, No.06, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 100 001.
2.The State Rep By Commissioner Of Police, Team Xi, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
3.M/s.Axis Bank Limited Having Its Branch Office At No.113, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-
017.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH WP No. 413 of 2024
1. M/s.Dadha Pharma LLP (formerly Known As M/s.Dadha Pharma Private Limited) Rep By Its Authorised Signatory Mr.D. Rahul Bafna Having Its Registered Office At New No. 187/ Old No.121, St.Marys Road, Alwarpet, Chennai- 018.
... Petitioner Vs
1. Reserve Bank Of India Rep By The Governor, No.06, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 100 001.
2.The State Rep By Commissioner Of Police, Team XI, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
3.M/s.Axis Bank Limited Having Its Branch Office At No.113, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 017.
... Respondents ORDER This matter is listed under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' today.
Paragraph 10 of the order dated 12.06.2025 shall read as follows:
" 10. In the light of the above discussions, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to act upon the circular issued https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 by the Reserve Bank of India and restore / recredit the amount to the tune of Rs.16,15,000/- which was siphoned from the current account of the petitioner, to the credit of Bank Account No.50200083855650, HDFC Bank, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
2. Registry is directed to carry out the above correction and issue fresh order copy to the parties.
03.07.2025 KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KST W.P.No.413 of 2024 03.07.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm ) WP No. 413 of 2024 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
gd WP No. 413 of 2024 12-06-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:21:50 pm )