Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14) Mr. Jagtiani would further submit that the learned Arbitrator has ignored vital evidence of R.W-1 containing admissions about BOI not periodically sharing information with the Respondent about the exact withdrawal amounts for replenishing the ATMs. That the witness further admitted that the BOI discovered the shortfall when it compared the accounts handed over to the custodian with the amounts deposited in the ATMs as reported in the CBR. That this admission normally demonstrates that if exercise of reconciliation was conducted, timely and periodically, the fraud would have been detected in the initial stages only.

24) Mr. Cooper would further submit that SIPL failed in carrying out its obligations under Schedule-A, which is evidently clear from the evidence on record which the learned Arbitrator has appreciated that SIPL serviced nearly 800 plus ATMs for FIS under the agreements across India for multiple banks. The cash replenishment report (C3R) submitted by FIS to SIPL was consolidated report for all ATMs containing multiple entries for cash replenishment services across India and were not limited to ATM services of Barhi and Jhumritelaiya. That there is express admission of FIS not providing C3Rs on regular basis. That such reports do not reflect the act of theft in any manner. The reports otherwise did not exhibit the exact amount withdrawn from BOI branches and the amount deposited in ATMs by the custodians of SIPL. That Schedule-A was confined to contractual obligations to be performed by SIPL and cannot be read to mean existence of any contractual obligation on FIS to conduct reconciliation with BOI.

45) The Arbitral Tribunal has recorded its findings on versions submitted by SIPL and FIS with the regard to each step. In respect of Step Nos.1 to 3, there was not much dispute between the parties, one of the major disputes was with regard to Step No.4 about preparation and issuance of cash indent. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that BOI did not receive real time and electronic update of cash being loaded into the ATM. It has further accepted FIS' case that ATM is a dumb machine and that the switch software did not know the actual physical cash in the ATM. The Arbitral Tribunal thus concluded that the amounts were not entered in ATM machines automatically or electronically and without human intervention and that the amount shown in electronic journal were derived as a result of data physically entered on respective ATM machine counters. In short, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that the ATM machine did not have means of recognizing the exact amount of cash loaded in it. The custodians made entries of cash loaded in the ATMs. The Arbitral Tribunal then considered Step-5 relating to withdrawal request _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 27 of 73 23 December 2025 Neeta Sawant CARBP-750 OF 2024 issued by SIPL for collection of cash from nodal branch. After analyzing versions of both the sides, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support SIPL's contention that the amounts withdrawn by custodians were intimated to FIS. The Arbitral Tribunal then went into further steps upto Step No.10 relating to preparation and submissions of Cash Balance Report (CBR) and Cash Replenishment Report (C3R).

100) The Arbitral Tribunal has also taken note of oral evidence, which supported the statement in the email of verification of submitted details. After analyzing the oral evidence on record, the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that FIS established through evidence that the amount defalcated by the custodians in respect of ATMs in Barhi was to the extent of Rs.16,17,53,900/-. The analysis of evidence by Arbitral Tribunal while determining quantum of amount of defalcation at Barhi Branch runs into about 42 pages and it cannot be contended that the said finding is arrived at merely on the basis of contents of email dated 9 February 2016. The said email is only considered as supporting factor by the Arbitral Tribunal in addition to other oral and documentary evidence on record.