Delhi District Court
M/S Baba Cottage Industries vs The Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR: DJ-05,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ NO. 456/2020
CNR NO. DLSE01-003278-2020
In the matter of :-
M/s Baba Cottage Industries,
A Partnership Firm
having its head office at Kani Deewar,
Near Islamia College, Hawal,
And Branch Office at B-220, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi -110024
..........PLAINTIFF
Versus
The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.,
having its Corporate Office at
M.A. Road, Srinagar, Kashmir and Branch,
Office amongst other at
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi -110024
......... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 03.10.2020
Arguments heard on : 05.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.03.2025
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS. 10,00,000/-
JUDGMENT
1) Vide this Judgment, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest, filed against the defendant has been disposed off.
2) The crux of the matter is that plaintiff is a partnership firm and Shri Latief Ahmad Baba S/o Late Ghulam Mohd. Baba is stated to be one of its registered partners. Plaintiff firm is CS DJ NO. 456/20 Page no. 1/10 M/s Baba Cottage Industries Vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:49 +0530 maintaining a Current Account No. CC-325 with the defendant's bank at its Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi branch. During Covid-19, the managing partners of plaintiff's firm alongwith its employees returned to Kashmir. During that period, plaintiff had sent emails to defendant bank for banking purpose. On 06.05.2020 defendant bank received an email from registered email ID of plaintiff and acting upon the same, defendant bank debited a sum of Rs. 7.50 lacs from the account of plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has disputed the email stating that it was not sent by the plaintiff or any of its partners or its employees and as per plaintiff, it appears that some mischievous person has fraudulently and mischievously used the E-mail Id of the plaintiff for alleged withdrawal of the said amount from the account of the plaintiff.
3) The defendant bank entered the appearance and filed WS and had taken the plea that defendant bank had performed the duty as per standard practice adopted by the bank due to Corona and after approval of the plaintiff.
4) From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.12.2021:-
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as prayed for?OPP
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest and if so, at what rate for what period? OPP
(iii) Relief.
5) Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
6) In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined its Manager partner Sh. Latif Ahmad Baba as PW-1. He has CS DJ NO. 82/19 Page no. 2/10 Rajendra Singh Bisht vs. Chairman/General Manager Vijay Bank Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:40:57 +0530 reiterated the facts of plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW1/11. He has relied upon the documents i.e.
1. Certificate of incorporation dated 08.02.2017 as Mark A (Ex.PW1/1 in affidavit); 2. Partnership deed dated 27.02.1989 as Mark B (colly.) (Ex.PW1/2 in affidavit); 3. Printout of message dated 06.05.2020 of my mobiles as Ex.PW1/3; 4. Printout of emails dated 06.05.2020 and 08.05.2020 as Ex. PW1/4 and Ex.
PW1/5 respectively; 5. Copy of letter dated 12.05.2020 as Mark C (Ex. PW1/6 in affidavit); 6. Copy of letter dated 24.06.2020 as Mark D (Ex. PW1/7 in affidavit); 7. Copy of reply of the plaintiff dated 24.06.2020 as Mark E (Ex.PW1/8 in affidavit); 8. Police complaint dated 03.07.2020 as Mark F (Ex. PW1/9 in affidavit);
9. Police complaint dated 03.07.2020 as Mark G (Ex. PW1/10 in affidavit); 10. Certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/11. Thereafter, matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
7) In defence, the defendant bank examined its AR Sh. Naresh Kumar as DW-1. He tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A thereby reiterating the defence taken in the written statement. He has also relied on the documents i.e. Power of Attorney of authorized representative as Ex. DW-1/1(OSR) and copy of emails and report are marked as Mark-A (colly).
8) Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chahal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Rahul Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant had filed written arguments and retrieved the same during the arguments before the Court. I have heard Ld. counsel for both the parties and CS DJ NO. 456/20 Page no. 3/10 M/s Baba Cottage Industries Vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:01 +0530 meticulously gone through the record. The written arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity and will be taken up at the relevant stage while findings upon issues.
9) The dispute in hand is limited to the question whether the email dated 06.05.2020 received by the defendant bank from the registered email ID of plaintiff was not sent by the plaintiff and was mischievously sent by someone else; and the defendant bank failed to adhere to the procedure and acted upon the email without confirmation from plaintiff and without following standard banking practice.
10) It is settled principle that in a civil case, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove its case and if no evidence or insufficient evidence is produced before the Court, then it is the plaintiff who has to suffer because it is the plaintiff who is claiming relief.
11) In the present suit the managing partner of plaintiff has entered into witness box to prove the case of plaintiff and has deposed on the lines of averments made in the plaint. Admittedly, the defendant bank received the email dated 06.05.2020 from the registered email ID of the plaintiff and it is also admitted that during the period from April, 2020 till June, 2020 the normal standard procedures and rules were not being followed due to Covid-19 pandemic. It was the black period of human history where all were confined to their houses and only essential and basic services were being provided.
12) Now the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove that CS DJ NO. 82/19 Page no. 4/10 Rajendra Singh Bisht vs. Chairman/General Manager Vijay Bank Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:05 +0530 defendant bank has not acted as per standard procedure and has failed to adhere to the banking procedure. In the present matter during DE, defendant has filed copy of emails which are Mark 'A' (colly), which contain the emails written by plaintiff to the defendant bank from 26.09.2019 till 08.05.2020 and email dated 12.05.2020 etc. All these emails have been sent to defendant bank from the registered email ID of the plaintiff and it reveals that even prior to Covid-19 pandemic, the plaintiff had been writing emails to defendant and defendant bank had been acted upon the same. Now the plaintiff had nowhere disputed these emails nor plaintiff had produced any evidence to prove that bank had ever sought any confirmation from the plaintiff by way of telephonic call or SMS before acting upon the emails sent from registered email ID of the plaintiff to the defendant bank. Even during, his testimony as PW-1, plaintiff has not deposed that prior to the email in question i.e. email dated 06.05.2020, the defendant bank used to take confirmation from the plaintiff firm before acting upon the email or before processing the transaction. Therefore no reason is coming forward why defendant bank should have taken confirmation from the plaintiff prior to processing the transaction instructed through email dated 06.05.2020.
During final arguments, plaintiff has relied upon the RBI guidelines to show that defendant bank is to perform duty as per these guidelines and defendant bank is liable to pay the money to plaintiff as plaintiff had reported the matter to the bank as per rules. The perusal of RBI guidelines dated 06.07.2017 filed by CS DJ NO. 456/20 Page no. 5/10 M/s Baba Cottage Industries Vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:09 +0530 the plaintiff shows that there is nothing in the guidelines which says that the bank needs to take confirmation from the customer before acting upon the email received from the registered email address of the customer.
13) Further, as per RBI guidelines relied upon by the plaintiff, in case of unauthorized electronic banking transaction, the customer/ plaintiff was required to report the unauthorized transaction to the bank within 03 working days and customer / plaintiff will have zero liability and if the matter is reported withing 4-7 working days, the customer will have limited liability.
In the present matter, PW -1 admitted that he noticed the unauthorized construction on 06.05.2020 itself and he further deposed that he immediately rushed to the bank and apprised the defendant bank that neither the plaintiff nor any of its partners or any of its employees has made any request for withdrawal of the amount through email and said email had been sent mischievously by someone else and thereafter, plaintiff sent an email dated 12.05.2020 to the defendant bank to take immediate steps for retrieving the amount and to take action against the culprits and plaintiff also submitted complaint to Cyber Crime Police Station Srinagar. Thus, admittedly, plaintiff got the knowledge of the disputed transaction on 06.05.2020 and still plaintiff had not taken any action till 12.05.2020. As per plaintiff, plaintiff immediately rushed to the Bank and then filed the complaint on 12.05.2020 upon not receiving appropriate response from the bank. But plaintiff had not disclosed what CS DJ NO. 82/19 Page no. 6/10 Rajendra Singh Bisht vs. Chairman/General Manager Vijay Bank Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:13 +0530 plaintiff did from 06.05.2020 to 12.05.2020, whether plaintiff made any call to defendant bank or sent any message or filed any complaint on customer care. Plaintiff made only one line averments that he approached Bank but did not receive appropriate response but plaintiff had not disclosed the mode, manner, date and time, when and how plaintiff approached the bank. As per record, plaintiff had reported the matter to the bank after 06 days and thus, there is delay on the part of plaintiff in notifying the bank of the transaction in question. The delay is not huge per se but considering the nature of transaction and allegations, the delay of each day is not only material but also fatal to the claim of plaintiff.
14) Further, the plaintiff has taken the plea that it was unauthorized electronic banking transaction and as per RBI guidelines, defendant bank is liable to pay the money to plaintiff. The onus to prove that it was an unauthorized banking transaction, is upon the plaintiff and merely because plaintiff is taking the plea that plaintiff has not sent the email to the bank, is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff. Admittedly, only an expert having expertise knowledge and experience in the filed of software and technology can analyze the email sent from the registered email address of the plaintiff to the defendant bank and can give the report whether the email received by the defendant bank was genuine email or not or that whether it was an unauthorised email or not. The plaintiff has not examined any expert nor plaintiff has summoned anyone from IT department of the defendant bank to give the report regarding genuineness of CS DJ NO. 456/20 Page no. 7/10 M/s Baba Cottage Industries Vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:18 +0530 the email in question.
15) In the present case defendant bank had filed the copy of Cisco report which is part of documents Mark 'A' (colly) and the relevant portion of the report is as follows:
"with reference to the subject complaint lodged with Banking Ombudsman, it is informed that the complaint was examined by CISCO team to analyze the legitimacy of the email received by the branch and it was observed as under:
The email was not a spoofed one. The content of the email was not changed in the communication path.
As per the message tracking details, there was no spam or malicious content in the mail. The header of the email dated 06.05.2020 was compared with emails and same pattern of the header was found.
It was concluded that branch received a genuine email from [email protected] and was given security treatment in line with other mails."
From the above report, it is clear that plaintiff lodged a complaint with Banking Ombudsman and in pursuant to the same Cisco team gave the abovesaid report. Thus, on the scale of probabilities, the defendant had been able to show that the email in question was genuine and the plaintiff had failed to prove that the email was not sent by the plaintiff or its partners or its employees and plaintiff had also failed to prove that the email was mischievously sent by someone else.
16) Further, plaintiff had filed any FIR no. 0338/2022 in PS CS DJ NO. 82/19 Page no. 8/10 Rajendra Singh Bisht vs. Chairman/General Manager Vijay Bank Dated 29.03.2025 Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:22 +0530 Amar Colony and the IO had filed status report and the relevant portion is as follows: "During course of enquiry by EO it has been revealed that sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- was transferred from the account of M/s Baba Cottage Industries to account no. 919020094663719 maintained with Axis bank in the name of Shri Sai Enterprises on 06.05.2020. Further, Shree Sai Enterprises had received Rs. 7,50,000/- in it account and the same has been withdrawn in cash and other modes by date 06.07.2020. The alleged amount has not been transferred to any other account i.e., ICICI Bank by Shree Sai Enterprise's account."
Thus, clearly the amount debited from the account of plaintiff has already been withdrawn from the account of creditor and the amount is not lying with any bank account. Admittedly, the investigation is still pending and nothing has come on record that even during investigation any report from FSL or any other expert has been received to show that the email in question was not sent by the plaintiff and it amounts to unauthorized electronic banking transaction so as to fix the liability of defendant bank as per RBI guidelines.
17) Thus, plaintiff has failed to prove its case that plaintiff had not sent the email in question to the defendant bank and some one else sent the email mischievously and defendant bank had not performed its duty and acted upon the email in question without confirmation from the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of any amount from the bank and subsequently no question of interest arises. Accordingly, Issue CS DJ NO. 456/20 Page no. 9/10 M/s Baba Cottage Industries Vs. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Dated 29.03.2025 PRABHDEEP Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.03.29 17:41:28 +0530 no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.
Relief.
18) In view of aforesaid discussion as all the issues have been decided in favour of defendant against the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All the pending interim applications stand dismissed being not pressed upon.
File be cosigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date: 2025.03.29
17:41:35 +0530
Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur)
announced in the open court DJ-05/South East District
on this 29th day of March, 2025 Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ NO. 82/19 Page no. 10/10
Rajendra Singh Bisht vs. Chairman/General Manager Vijay Bank Dated 29.03.2025