Delhi District Court
Rishipal Singh vs State Bank Of India And Anr on 30 July, 2025
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11 CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No.831/2024
Rishipal Singh
S/o Kuwarpal Singh
R/o Village Manpur, Thana Tappal
District Aligarh, U.P.
Also At: 61 WE Unit Bhatinda, Punjab .........Plaintiff
Vs.
1. State Bank of India
Through its Branch Manager
IP Estate, N-Block,
New Delhi, Delhi-11 0002
2. Nitan Kumar
S/o Shri Jaiveer Singh
R/o Village: Bhanota, Post: Bhanota
Police Station: Gulavati,
District Bulandsahar, U.P. ........Defendants
Date of Institution : 31.07.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 30.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2025
Decision : Decreed
Judgment
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 bank and
defendant No. 2 Sh. Nitan Kumar for reliefs of Declaration against the
bank that plaintiff did not avail any loan facility and is not liable to pay
any money. Relief of permanent injunction is also sought for restraining
the defendant bank from deducting Rs.24,281/- from plaintiff's salary
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 1 of 34
account. Also relief of recovery of Rs.6,35,854/- is sought against the
bank and defendant No. 2 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. Case of the plaintiff as per amended plaint and document filed is that the
plaintiff is serving as Nayak in Indian Army. Defendant No. 1 is a
nationalized bank having branches at IP Estate, New Delhi also at Ranchi,
Jharkhand as also at Sector 31, Faridabad, Haryana. Defendant No. 2 is a
serving Sepoy in Indian Army. Although, the plaint is silent but the Court
is apprised that the defendant No. 2 was in judicial custody in a FIR
lodged by the plaintiff against him for cheating and forgery with PS Cyber
Police Station, Central District. Court is also apprised that a charge sheet
has been filed against him.
3. It is case of the plaintiff that on 26.11.2020, he was posted somewhere in
J&K. In April 2021, the defendant No. 2 Nitan Kumar joined his
Regiment where they met for the first time and defendant No. 2
befriended the plaintiff as they used to reside in the same barrack. It is
pleaded that defendant No. 2 suspiciously hacked the mobile phone of the
plaintiff and thereafter in connivance with officials/agent of Defendant
No.1 bank, Defendant no. 2 availed three personal loans in the name of
the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 adopted the same modus operandi in
availing these loans which were sanctioned and disbursed by Defendant
No.1 bank. The first loan was applied at Kantakoli Branch of State Bank
of India at Ranchi, Jharkhand on 25.10.2021 under Express Credit
Scheme. A sum of Rs.9,00,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed into the
bank account of the plaintiff but simultaneously on the same day it was
transferred into the account of defendant No. 2. It is pleaded that a forged
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 2 of 34
service certificate prepared in the name of the plaintiff was used for
availing this facility which also contain false stamp of the Defence
Department by the two defendants in connivance with each other.
4. The second loan was processed and sanctioned by State Bank of India at
Sector 31, Faridabad, Haryana on 26.04.2022. This was personal loan of
Rs.11,00,000/- under Express Credit Scheme. It was disbursed into the
plaintiff account on 27.04.2022. Thereafter, by using forged
consent/irrevocable authority letter a sum of Rs.8,38,141/- was deposited
in the first loan issued by SBI's Kantakoli Branch, Ranchi, Jharkhand and
the balance Rs.2,61,859/- was transferred from plaintiff's account to the
account of the defendant No. 2.
5. The third loan was said to be of Rs.13,00,000/- sanctioned on 20.05.2022
at SBI's IP Estate Branch, New Delhi. A sum of Rs.10,80,739/- was
remitted from plaintiff's account to the loan account of Sector 31,
Faridabad, Haryana and remaining Rs.2,19,626/- was transferred to the
defendant No. 2's bank account. Although, the plaint is silent but Court is
apprised that the defendant No. 2 also has bank account with defendant
No. 1 State Bank of India. It is pleaded that all these three loans were
applied and sanctioned by using forged documents since the plaintiff has
never applied for any personal loan nor a single penny was ever received
by him for his benefit. It is pleaded that the defendant No. 2 was aware of
his mobile passwords and managed the messages received on the
plaintiff's mobile even while the plaintiff was not aware of any such
transaction.
6. It is pleaded that the employees of the Defendant bank played dubious
role since they did not physically verify the documents filed alongwith the
loans from the plaintiff or meet the plaintiff physically. The factum of
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 3 of 34
fraudulent loan transactions came to the plaintiff's notice when the third
loan was successfully availed from IP Estate Branch, New Delhi. When
he confronted the defendant No. 2 about the same and warned him that he
will inform the authorities about the activity, the defendant No. 2 admitted
the mistake and he sought some time to pay back the money. When the
defendant No. 2 did not pay back as promised, plaintiff was constrained to
make a complaint to Unit Officer and other competent authorities. He also
made complaints to managers of the three branches of the State Bank of
India and also filed complaint to the Chief Manager and Banking
Ombudsman of the bank but no action was taken. His complaints were
closed without even looking into the merits of his plea. Plaintiff also filed
a complaint with Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh apart from filing a
complaint with SHO, IP Estate, Delhi.
7. On his complaint FIR No. 0021/2023 was registered by PS IP Estate on
08.04.2023 under Section 419/420/468/471 IPC at Cyber Police Station,
Central against the defendant No. 2, the police thereafter arrested the
defendant No. 2 on 16.05.2024. Although the plaint is silent but Court is
apprised that the defendant No. 2 remained in custody between
16.05.2024 and 11.09.2024 i.e. around six months.
8. Plaintiff requested the State Bank of India on 16.05.2023 to freeze the
plaintiff's account followed by another letter on 17.05.2023 to stop
deducting EMIs of Rs.24,281/- from his salary account. But instead of
stopping the deductions, State Bank of India speeded up the deductions
and deducted twice or thrice the EMI value in a month in a totally
unethical and illegal manner.
9. On 13.07.2024, the plaintiff received a message on his mobile that a
charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of Ld. CMM, THC by Cyber
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 4 of 34
Police Station and Court has taken cognizance against the defendant No.
2. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff inspected the judicial file on 25.07.2024
wherein he found that Sh. Sant Lal Pahuja, Assistant Manager in the IP
Estate Branch of State Bank of India did not follow the Standing
Operating Procedure while sanctioning the third loan and Ms. Shahista
Bux, Deputy Manager, IP Estate did not verify the signatures from the
system and disbursed the loan casually. The charge-sheet also revealed
that Sh. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Assistant Manager and Ms. Kuldeep Rathi,
Deputy Manager of Sector 31, Faridabad Branch also sanctioned loans
without proper verification. Likewise, Sh. Prabhat David, Deputy
Manager of Ranchi, Jharkhand Branch sanctioned and disbursed the loan
without proper verification. Proceeds of these loans were utilized by the
defendant No. 2. It is pleaded that first loan was disbursed on 25.10.2021
in the plaintiff's salary account with the defendant No. 1 State Bank of
India at Dalhouise Road, New Delhi. The second and third loan too was
disbursed in the same account on 26.04.2022 and 20.05.2022 respectively.
10.Plaintiff did not carry out Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings since an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed alongwith the suit.
In this backdrop, the suit in hand was filed for following reliefs:
Prayer:
i. Pass a Decree of Declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants/
their employees/ successors/ agents declaring that the Plaintiff never availed any loan
facility under the alleged Loan Account No. 40994718498 maintained by the
Defendant No. 1 and hence, is not liable towards repayment of the same
ii. Pass a decree of Temporary Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant no.1 restraining the defendant no.l/ his assigns/ successors/ agents of
Branch Code 01187 IP Estate, New Delhi from deducting the monthly installment of
Rs24,281/- from the salaried account of the plaintiff bearing account no.
20076996875 and /or;
iii. Pass a decree of Permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant no.1 restraining the defendant no. 1 his assigns/ successors/ agents of
Branch Code 01187 IP Estate, New Delhi from deducting the monthly installment of
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 5 of 34
Rupees 24,281/- from the salaried account of the plaintiff bearing account no.
20076996875 and/ or;
iv. Pass a decree of recovery of Rupees 6,35,854/- [Six lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Eight
Hundred and Fifty Four only] against the defendants & their assigns/successors/
agents of Branch Code 01187 IP Estate, New Delhi jointly or severally along with
pendent lite and future interest @ 12 %per annum.
v. Pass any other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances.
11.Upon filing of the suit, ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted to the
plaintiff by Ld. Predecessor on 31.07.2024 whereby State Bank of India
was directed to not to deduct EMIs from the plaintiff's salary account at
Dalhouise Road, New Delhi. Copy of this order was served and Order 39
Rule 3 CPC compliance was carried out on 03.08.2024. However, record
reveals that despite grant of stay by Ld. Predecessor on 31.07.2024 and its
due service to the defendant No. 1 on 03.08.2024, the SBI deducted three
EMIs on 30.08.2024. Plaintiff was constrained to move Contempt of
Court application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC on 07.09.2024. Even
during the pendency of this contempt application the bank did not relent
and continued to deduct the EMI from the plaintiff's account and yet
another EMI was deducted on 30.09.2024. Although no second/separate
contempt was filed but this is ex facie stand-alone second contempt
purportedly committed by defendant No. 1 State Bank of India. It is
interesting to observe that this second deduction happened three weeks
after the defendant bank entered appearance through their counsel Sh. R.
K. Sinha in this Court on 09.09.2024 after the summons of the suit and
stay order was served upon the bank on 03.08.2024.
Defendant's Case.-
12. Case of the defendant as per WS filed to the amended suit is that it is
being filed through Ms. Priyanka Gupta who is Chief Manager of IP
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 6 of 34
Estate Branch of the bank. Dismissal of this suit is prayed by the bank on
the ground that the same is frivolous and infructuous. First preliminary
objection in the WS is anomalous as it refers to some property even
though the suit in hand does not pertain to any property. It is pleaded that
the suit of the plaintiff is false and fictitious as plaintiff has fabricated a
story and for this suit deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. The suit
of the plaintiff is said to be sham and bogus and does not make out any
case in favour of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has no locus
standi to file this suit. Plaintiff is said to approach this Court with unclean
hands.
13. It is pleaded that vide application dated 19.05.2022, on 20.05.2022,
plaintiff, through YONO facility applied for expressed credit loan from IP
Estate branch of State Bank of India for Rs.13,00,000/-. Upon due
verification and obtaining signatures of the plaintiff for the second time
the loan of Rs.13,00,000/- was disbursed. The WS is totally silent as to
how the claimed second signatures of the plaintiff were taken i.e. whether
the officials of the defendant bank visited the plaintiff and got the
signatures physically or they issued any communication to the plaintiff so
as to ask him to come to the branch and signed the documents physically
in the presence of the Branch Manager. Even the verification clause
available at the end of WS is ambiguous and it is not as per Order 6 Rule
15 (2) CPC. The law mandates that the deponent verifying the pleadings
shall specify as to which part of the pleading is based on personal
knowledge and which part is based on information received and believed
to be true but nothing of this sort is mentioned in the verification of WS
filed by State Bank of India which vitiates the verification and has the
capacity of adversely impacting the entire defence of the bank.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 7 of 34
14. The bank admits that three loans worth Rs.9,00,000/-, Rs.11,00,000/- and
Rs.13,00,000/- were disbursed in the name of plaintiff from Ranchi,
Faridabad and IP Estate Branches of State Bank of India on 25.10.2021,
27.04.2022 and 20.05.2022 respectively. It is mentioned the first two
accounts were closed while the third one is live. It is claimed that credit
facility was availed from the branch after signing the arrangement letter
and consent form. It is accepted that sum of Rs.10,80,739/- was debited
from this account on the same day i.e. 20.05.2022. It is pleaded that after
two months from disbursement of loan, plaintiff issued letters and e-mails
to IP Estate Branch that the loan facility was frivolously manipulated by
hacking of his phone by Sh. Nitan Kumar, the defendant No. 2 and
requested for closure of the said loan account. According to the bank,
since the loan was disbursed in plaintiff's name he is liable to pay the
amount to the bank. They claim that the loan was issued after proper
verification followed by authentication via OTP. It is a case of the bank
that the plaintiff alongwith his family members approached the bank on
09.09.2022 and relevant loan documents were shared to him on
18.10.2022. The WS refers to some internal report dated 19.10.2022 and
pleads that the defendant No. 2 Sh. Nitan Kumar also visited the Branch.
In Para 7 of the preliminary submissions, bank has taken a plea that the
defendant No. 2 visited IP Estate Branch of State Bank of India and
confirmed that the loan was availed for investing in share market and that
money was lost. It is further pleaded that according to information shared
by the defendant No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 had certain
disputes. Nothing has been shown on record in support of the plea that the
defendant No. 2 visited the bank and affirmed about the genuineness of
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 8 of 34
disbursal of the loan. It is ex-facie in absence of any proof this appears to
be a concocted fact.
15. As per the WS, the plea of the plaintiff that he was unaware of transaction
purportedly carried out by the defendant No. 2 from his account was not
in his knowledge. It is claim that it is plaintiff himself who conspicuously
closed his earlier two loan accounts but is now claiming that the third loan
as a fraudulent transaction.
16. In its reply on merits to the plaint the WS does not comply either with
Order 8 Rule 5 CPC or with Order 8 Rule 3A CPC. It is not
specifically denied that plaintiff is serving in Indian Army or that the
defendant No. 2 is also serving in Indian Army. It is not denied that the
defendant No. 2 is in judicial custody. Surprisingly, the defendant No. 1
SBI is not admitting that it is a nationalized bank and has branches in
Faridabad, Ranchi and IP Estate. It is not denied that on 26.11.2020, the
plaintiff was posted somewhere in J&K alongwith the defendant No. 2. It
is not denied that plaintiff met the defendant No. 2 for the first time
during that posting or that the defendant No. 2 befriended plaintiff during
that time. The Bank denies that the defendant No. 2 have mobile of the
plaintiff and that in active connivance with officials of the bank, the
defendant No. 2 availed three loans in the name of the plaintiff. It is
claimed that it appears that it is the plaintiff who shared his personal
details with the defendant No. 2. WS also mentioned that when the
plaintiff came to know of the fraud instead of informing the bank he
confronted the defendant No. 2. YONO loan facility is avail only as per
OTP authentication after due verification by the field officers. It is
reiterated that when initially the signatures did not match then fresh
signatures were taken and after re-verification the loan amount was
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 9 of 34
disbursed. It is claimed that the bank had obtained an expert opinion for
verification of signatures wherein it was concluded that disputed and
comparative signatures are of the same person. Neither the said original
handwriting expert report was placed on record nor the expert was cited or
examined as a witness by the bank.
17. The bank does not deny that the three loans of Rs.9,00,000/-,
Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- was disbursed in the name of the
plaintiff. It is accepted that the plaintiff's complaint was registered with
Cyber Police and FIR was registered whereunder now a charge-sheet
stands filed. It is not denied that plaintiff requested the bank to not to
deduct EMIs of Rs.24,281/- from his account.
18. It is interesting to observe that the defendant bank does not dispute that
according to investigation carried out by Cyber Police, Sh. Sant Lal
Pahuja, Assistant Manager in the IP Estate Branch, Ms. Shahista Bux,
Deputy Manager and Sh. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Assistant Manager and Ms.
Kuldeep Rathi, Deputy Manager of Sector 31, Faridabad Branch did not
carry out proper verification before sanctioning and disbursing the loan
amount. State Bank of India does not dispute that all the three loan
amounts were utilized by the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 does not
dispute that this Court has territorial jurisdiction and suit is within
limitation. With these pleas, the Bank has prayed for dismissal of this suit.
19. Upon completion of pleadings following issues were identified by this
Court on 28.10.2024 and additional issue on 30.07.2025:
Issues:
i. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant bank and its officials from deducting monthly instalment of
Rs.24,281/- from the salary account of plaintiff bearing no. 20076996875? OPP
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 10 of 34
ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.6,35,854/- alongwith interest
@12% per annum? OPP
iii. Relief.
Additional Issue/Issue No. 4:
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the loan
no.4099471849813000001187 pertaining to IP Estate Branch from A/c No. 20076996875 is
null and void? OPP
Evidence
20.Evidence in this case was ordered to be recorded before Ld. LC Ms.
Ankita Khanna, Advocate for recording of evidence as per protocol
created by this Court under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 15A
Rule 6(l) and (o) CPC as applicable to Commercial suits for the sake of
timely disposal of this case.
Plaintiff's Evidence
21.To prove his case plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW1 Rishipal
Singh. Vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A he deposed on the lines of plaint and
exhibited following documents
i. Certified copy of the charge sheet alongwith FIR No. 0021/2023 filed before Ms.
Rashmi Gupta, Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District, Delhi u/s 419, 467
471, 201 IPC against Defendant no. 2 is Ex PW 1/1 (Colly).
ii. Canteen smart card is Exhibited as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
iii. Copy of complaint dated 21/09/2022 to the Branch Manager is Exhibited as Ex.
PW1/3 (Colly).
iv. Copy of Email dated 19/10/2022 from SBI, I.P. Estate is Exhibited as Ex. PW1/4
v. Copy of reply dated 23/09/2022 from SBI to I.P. Estate is Exhibited as Ex.
PW1/5.
vi. Copy of Reply dated 06/09/2022 from SBI to Banking Ombudsman is Exhibited
as Ex. PW1/6 (Colly)
vii. Copy of Email dated 05/09/2022 from Rishipal to SBI is Exhibited as Ex. PW1/7
(Colly)
viii.Copy of Email dated 31/08/2022 from Rishipal to Chief General Manager, LHO,
New Delhi is Exhibited as Ex. PW1/8
ix. Copy of Email dated 06/02/2023 from Branch Manager, INS India with respect to
Accounts stop is Exhibited as Ex. PW1/9.
x. Copy of message dated 16/05/2023 from SBI that Account is stopped is Exhibited
as Ex. PW1/10.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 11 of 34
xi. Copy of Email dated 14/05/2023 and 16/05/2023 seeking to seize the account is
Exhibited as Ex. PW1/11
xii. Copy of statement of Account no. 20076996875 from 01/10/2021 to 01/06/2022 is
Exhibited as Ex. PW1/12 (Colly)
xiii.Copy of message dated 01/07/2024 is Exhibited as Ex. PW1/13.
22. In his cross-examination done by Sh. R K Sinha Ld. Counsel for
defendant bank, PW1 stated that he is educated up to 12 th and joined the
services on 08.10.2010. He accepted that he can type messages and email
and his mobile phone is internet enabled. He also knows how to search
the internet on his phone. He added that he uses his phone to make video
calls to his family on whatsapp. He is aware of carrying out of payments
on phone but he does not know how to use internet banking. Since 2022
he asked for his bank statement via email on three occasions. He got
updated his passbook in June-July 2022. He denied that the passbook was
updated even after 2022. He does not know anything about share market
and have never invested any money. He has been posted during his
service at Chandigarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jodhpur, Kashmir and is
currently posted in Delhi. He has two bank accounts one with defendant
State Bank of India and the other with Punjab National Bank, a joint
account with his wife.
23. He does not have any loan account. He used to visit his family on leave in
2022 at District Aligarh UP. He visited the defendant bank in June-July
2022 after the fraud was committed in his account. He was not aware
when the first installment was deducted from his salary account. He came
to know of the deduction in July 2022. His salary gets credited after 28 th
of preceding month and 1st of succeeding month. He met Defendant no. 2
Nitan in April 2021 when he was posted in Srinagar. He accepted the
suggestion that they were living in the same barrack. He also accepted the
suggestion that Defendant no. 2 knew his phone's password. Defendant
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 12 of 34
no. 2 used his mobile once or twice for making a call. He has only one
mobile. He denied the suggestion that his documents are available with
the defendant bank in the loan file for KYC. He accepted the suggestion
that he himself contacted the bank and the police when he came to know
of the loan fraud. He added that neither bank nor police officials helped
him but rather the DCP concerned issued direction for registration of the
case on his request. The complaint was drafted by his brother who resides
in Delhi and runs a factory.
24. He was never called by the defendant bank officials for any clarification
regarding the loan. The bank started deducting the salary from June-July
2022 apart from allowing Defendant no. 2 to use his phone on couple of
occasions. He did not give his phone to any other person. He used to get
whatsapp messages but at the time of incident he did not receive any
SMS. He was, however, receiving other text messages like missed call
alert etc. He denied that he was regularly receiving messages qua bank
transactions.
25. He initially made a complaint against Defendant no. 2 with the
Commanding Officer whereafter Defendant no. 2 was declared a deserter
by his CEO but no action was taken on his complaint. Nitan stayed with
him in the same barrack between April 2021 to June 2022 before he was
declared a deserter. He accepted that the first deduction of installment was
carried out in November 2021 but it was shown reverted back on the same
day. His last contact with Nitan was in July-August 2022. He denied
having any oral understanding with Defendant no. 2 qua money
transaction. He also placed on record out pass Ex.PW1/14 issued to him
by his unit. He identified the certified copy of the chargesheet filed by the
cyber police on his complaint. He denied signing any document
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 13 of 34
purportedly filed by the bank which is now available in the chargesheet.
He identified several documents filed with the chargesheet namely his pay
slip as the one belonging to him. He stated that his service document is a
fabricated one but he identified his picture at village address on the same.
He did not admit the suggestion that in the FIR lodged by him no case is
made out against the bank officials. He added that the chargesheet does
carry details against the bank officials. PW1 was not cross-examined by
Defendant no. 2.
26. Second witness examined by the plaintiff is PW2 ASI Pankaj Yadav
from Cyber Police Central Delhi. He deposed that he is Investigating
Officer of FIR no. 21/2023 and he filed the chargesheet on plaintiff's
complaint on 15.07.2024 and identified its certified copy as Ex.PW1/1.
He stated the speciman signatures of plaintiff was sent to FSL but the
report is awaited.
27.During his cross-examination done on behalf of State Bank of India he
stated that he did not carry out seizure of documents from the defendant
bank's different branches as well as plaintiff. During the investigation he
also met Defendant no. 2 Nitan Kumar in the police station. He has also
obtained call detail record of plaintiff and Defendant no. 2. He accepted
that the bank officials joined the investigation upon being served a notice
and submitted documents. This witness was not cross-examined by
Defendant no. 2.
Defendant's Evidence
28.On the other hand defendant State Bank of India bank examined DW1
Priyanka Gupta, Chief Manager. Vide Ex.DW1/1 she deposed on the
lines of WS and exhibited following documents:
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 14 of 34
i. Copy of the Gazette notification is Exhibited as Ex DW1/A which is later de-
exhibited and is marked as Mark C at Page no. 34 to 38.
ii. Copy of the Express credit Loan application form dt. 19/05/2022 is Exhibited as
Ex.DW1/B which is later de-exhibited and marked as Mark D at Page no. 39 to 45.
iii. Copy of the document qua intended loan is Exhibited as Ex. DW1/C (colly) which is
later de-exhibited and marked as Mark E at Page no. 46 to 54.
iv. Copy of the arrangement letter of the credit facility availed by the plaintiff along with
the copy of the personal loan agreement is Exhibited as Ex. DW1/D (colly) which is
later de-exhibited and marked as Mark F at Page no. 55 to 60.
v. Copy of the consent to closure of account no. 40943900749 is Exhibited as Ex.
DW1/E which is later de-exhibited and marked as Mark G at Page no. 61.
vi. Copy of the SMS DLR Report from 01/05/2022 to 31/05/2022 is Exhibited as Ex.
DW1/F which is later de-exhibited and marked as Mark H at Page no. 62 to 63.
vii. Copy of the internal report dt. 19/10/2022 is Exhibited as Ex. DW1/G which is later
de-exhibited and marked as Mark I at Page no. 64 to 70.
viii.Copy of the RBI circular is Exhibited as Ex. DW1/H which is later de-exhibited and
marked as Mark J at Page no. 71 to 77.
ix. Copy of the expert opinion on disputed signature of the Plaintiff dt. 11/11/2022 is
Exhibited as Ex. DWI/I which is later de-exhibited and marked as Mark K at Page
no. 78 to 100.
x. Copy of the acknowledgment letter dt. 12/04/2023 and notice u/s 91 Cr.PC is
Exhibited as Ex.DW1/J (colly).
xi. All the original documents except Ex. DW1/J (colly) are submitted with the Cyber
cell as the documents were submitted after the complaint made by Rishipal Singh
before the Cyber cell.
29. On the objection of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff several photocopy
documents were changed to marks. In her cross-examination carried out
by Sh. Rahul Singh Chauhan Ld. Counsel for plaintiff the loan
application dated 19.05.2022 is purportedly signed by the plaintiff and in
the same plainitiff's address is mentioned as Delhi Cantt. She accepted
that no address proof is filed with the application. She admitted that the
application purportedly carries signatures of plaintiff at two places. She
also admitted that these signatures mismatched with the signatures of the
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 15 of 34
plaintiff available with the bank initially and thereafter the second
signatures were obtained. She agreed the suggestion that the signatures
were verified by Ms. Shaista Bux. She admitted that application of closure
of Rs.11 lakhs loan has no date over it. As per loan sanction report it was
processed by Ms. Shaista Bux and sanctioned by Sh. Shakti Shekhar.
Likewise, the irrevocable standing instructions at page 52 is also signed
by plaintiff at two places so also the Rs.100 e-stamp paper shown to be
executed on 20.05.2022. Similarly, consent form and arrangement letters
are also purportedly signed by the plaintiff at two places. She accepted
that except delivery report for the month of May 2022 does not have any
reference of reading of the message by the recipient.
30. She accepted as correct the suggestion that the reference and the internal
report dated 19.10.2022 at page 67 and 68 (qua plaintiff using loan money
in share market) is not based on any evidence. The witness could not
disclose if the alleged signatures of plaintiff were taken in the branch or
any place outside since this fact must be in the knowledge of Ms. Sahista
Bux. Only she can tell when the first and the second signatures were
obtained by her on all the documents. At this juncture it is surprising to
observe that the bank did not produce its employee Ms. Sahista Bux so as
to establish their plea that the two signatures on the loan application form
and other documents were appended by none other than plaintiff.
31.She denied the suggestion that plaintiff did not apply for personal loan of
Rs. 13 lakhs at IP Estate Branch through YONO facility or that he never
visited the branch for execution of loan documents on 19.05.2022 or
20.05.2022. She also denied that bank officials Sh. S L Pahuja and Ms.
Sahista Bux helped Defendant no. 2 Nitan Kumar in availing these loans
in the name of plaintiff Rishipal Singh. She denied that planitiff is a
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 16 of 34
victim of fraud committed by Defendant no. 2 in connivance with State
Bank of India's officials. She was not cross-examined by Defendant no. 2.
32. I have heard arguments of Sh. Rahul Singh Chauhan and Ms. Rakshita
Sharma, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff assisted by plaintiff Rishipal Singh
in person and Sh. R.K. Sinha, assisted by Chief Manager Ms.
Priyanka Gupta, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 Bank. None has
appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2. I have perused the case file
carefully.
33.Now I shall dispose of individual issues framed in this case.
Issue No.1, 2 and 4:
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining
the defendant bank and its officials from deducting monthly instalment of
Rs.24,281/- from the salary account of plaintiff bearing no. 20076996875? OPP
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.6,35,854/- alongwith interest
@12% per annum? OPP
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the loan
no.4099471849813000001187 pertaining to IP Estate Branch from A/c No.
20076996875 is null and void? OPP
34. Before embarking on deciding the above issues it would be appropriate to
cull out the facts admitted in the pleadings, evidence and final arguments.
It is admittted case of both the sides that plaintiff is a serving army official
and has a salary account with State Bank of India, Dalhousie Road, New
Delhi. It is also admitted that a complaint was made by the plaintiff with
the IP Estate Branch to the effect that Defendant no. 2 Nitan Kumar, his
barrackmate, played a fraud upon him and by applying, getting sanctioned
and getting disbursed three loans worth Rs.9 lakhs, Rs.11 lakhs and Rs.13
lakhs in plaintiff's name. It is also admitted case of both the sides that
immediately after disbursement of initial purported personal loan of Rs.9
lakhs, was credited by the Ranchi, Jharkhand Branch of State Bank of
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 17 of 34
India in the name of the plaintiff, the money was transferred to the bank
account of Defendant no. 2 Nitan Kumar. Likewise, it is admitted case of
both the sides that as soon as the second loan of Rs. 11 lakhs through
Sector 31, Faridabad branch of State Bank of India it was credited into the
loan account of State Bank of India Ranchi Branch and balance was
transferred to Defendant no. 2 2 Nitan Kumar's bank account. It is further
admitted case of both the sides that the third loan of Rs.13 lakhs, yet again
applied through YONO (You Only Need One) facility and that out of this
Rs.13 lakhs credit, debit balance of second loan of Faridabad was paid up
and remaining was transferred to the account of Defendant no. 2 Nitan
Kumar.
35. It is further admitted case of the parties that the application seeking
closure of the second loan account of Rs.11 lakhs (disbursed by Faridabad
Branch of SBI) was received by IP Estate Branch and that he did not carry
any date and also that plaintiff's signature on this applciation as well as
loan application and several other documents including the loan
agreement in question did not initially tally with the sample signatures of
the plaintiff available with State Bank of India's database. It is also
admitted case of both the sides that on the complaint of the plaintiff Cyber
Cell Police Station of Central District registered FIR no. 21/2023 and that
now chargesheet Ex.PW1/1 stands filed under Section 419, 420, 468,
471, 201 of IPC against Defendant no. 2 and he is facing trial before the
Court of CJM Central, THC. The chargesheet also carries a remark that
conduct, action, omissions on the part of officials of State Bank of India
in not only IP Estate Branch but also Sector 31 Faridabad branch as also
Ranchi, Jharkhand Branch, qua their involvment in this loan fraud is still
underway.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 18 of 34
36. It is evident from the record and also admitted case of the parites that on
the very first day when the suit in hand was filed by the plaintiff i.e.
31.07.2024 ex-parte ad interim injunction order was passed by Ld.
Predecessor thereby injuncting State Bank of India IP Estate Branch from
deducting any Equated Monthly Installment from plaintiff's loan account
no.4099471849813000001187 and account no.20076996875. As per
affidavit of compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC filed on record by Ms.
Rakshita Sharma, Advocate for plaintiff the copy of ad interim ex parte
injunction order dated 31.07.2024 alongwith copy of plaint and its
annexures was sent to the bank on 01.08.2024 via speed post which
according to the annexed tracking report was duly served on the bank on
02.08.2024. A plea is raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant in this regard
that the envelope received by the bank on 02.08.2024 did not carry the
injunction order and that rather copy of the stay order was received by
bank on 27.08.2024. This aspect would be dealt in length while disposing
the contempt petition filed by the plaintiff against the bank under Order
39 Rule 2A CPC.
37. It is admitted case of both the sides that two EMIs were deducted by the
bank from plaintiff's account on 30.08.2024 and yet another on
30.09.2024. It is also admitted case of the parties that these three
installments were deducted from the account of the plaintiff despite
existence of an injunction order against the bank. However, admittedly,
the EMI deducted on 30.09.2024 was reversed by the bank on 09.10.2024
but the two EMIs deducted on 30.08.2024 were not reversed for almost an
year and are said to have been reversed few days ago on 21.07.2025
during the course of final arguments of this case.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 19 of 34
38. While opening his submissions Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that
there is sufficient material available on record to establish that Defendant
no. 2 in connivance with employees/officials of State Bank of India
applied and availed three loans in the name of plaintiff namely for Rs. 9
lakhs, Rs.11 lakhs and 13 lakhs. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied on
conclusions arrived at by the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police in the
chargesheet Ex.PW1/1 where it is pointed out that employees of the State
Bank of India working at Ranchi, Jharkhand, Faridabad, Haryana and IP
Estate Delhi have not followed the Bank's SOP in disbursing the loan.
Attention of this Court is drawn to 8 loan documents relied by the State
Bank of India in disbursing the third loan from IP Estate Branch which are
part of the chargesheet Ex.PW1/1. These documents are shown to be
executed by the plaintiff by walking into the IP Estate Branch on
19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022 even though as per a letter issued by the
Commanding Officer of the plaintiff unit dated 05.06.2023, the leave
record of the planitiff, it is evident that, on 19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022
plaintiff was physically present and serving in his unit at Srinagar, Jammu
and Kashmir also available on record as Ex.PW2/1.
39. It is pointed out and argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the
Defendant no. 1 bank has failed to show anything on record that plaintiff
physically came to IP Estate Branch on 19.05.2022-20.05.2022 for
applying for the third loan of Rs.13 lakhs.
40. On the contrary while arguing on behalf of the defendant bank Ld.
Counsel submits that it was actually the plaintiff and Defendant no. 2 who
connived with each other and defrauded the bank. It is submitted that they
had invested money in share market and had apparently lost their
investment. While making submissions on the aspect of execution of 8
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 20 of 34
loan documents on 19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022 nothing has been shown
that plaintiff physically appeared in the branch to sign the 8 documents.
Admittedly, 3 offficials of the State Bank of India are shown to have
received the loan application and processed the loan namely Ms. Sahista
Bux, Sh. Shakti Shekhar and Sh. S. L. Pahuja, Deputy Branch Manager.
The bank has not examined either of these three witnesses. The failure of
the bank to produce and examine these witnesses calls for drawing of
adverse inference against the bank under Section Section 119 of Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act).
For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 119 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Court may
presume existence of certain facts
Illustration
The Court may presume-
(g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to
the person who withholds it;
41. In case titled Krishan Dayal Vs. Chandu Ram, 1969 SCC Latest
Caselaw 133 Del while discussing the effect of withholding of material
documents like account book it was observed that:
"Question then arises as to what is the effect of the withholding of material account
books. In this respect I find that according to illustration (g) under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act, the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be
unfavorable to the person who withholds it. The principle underlying the above
illustration has been applied by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in cases
wherein a party in possession of material document does not produce the same. It has
accordingly been held that the non-production of a material document by a party to
a case would make the Court draw an inference against that party.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (Mookerjee and Panton, JJ.) in the
case of Debendra Narayan Singh v. Narendra Narayan Singh and others held:- "In
a suit for accounts, the non-production of account books by the party who has
custody of them justifies the presumption under Section 114(g). Evidence Act, that
they have been withheld, because if produced, they would have been unfavorable to
his case. If he is the plaintiff and is claiming accounts though withholding papers, his
suit is liable to be dismissed.
(Emphasis Supplied)
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 21 of 34
42. In case titled Union of India Vs. Mahadeolal Prabhudayal, 1965 Latest
Caselaw 43 SC Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing judgments
passed by Privy Counsel ruled that:
"If it is found that a party to a suit breaches its application to give full disclosure of
relevant facts and materials, the Court shall invoke the presumption attached to
Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act."
43. Once the commanding officer of the plaintiff's unit has placed on record
leaves record of the plaintiff to show that plaintiff was on duty in Jammu
and Kashmir on 19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022 and bank failed to produce
any witness to substantiate its plea that plaintiff actually visited and
exectued these documents, apparently the plea of the bank that these
documents are genuine remains unestablished.
44. Furthermore, by bare perusal of these 8 documents it is found that all of
them are purportedly signed twice with the numerals "RSingh". It is case
of the bank that when the initial "Rsingh" was signed it did not tally with
the speciman signatures available with the bank and as such the signatures
remained unverified. This led to obtaining a second set of signatures on
all these 8 documents. Upon cursory comparison of these 2 signatures it is
evident that they are strikingly dissimilar to each other. This fact is fairly
admitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant bank.
45. Court is apprised that during the course of investigation Cyber Cell has
obtained speciman signatures of the plaintiff and sent the same for
comparison with the CFSL, however, the report is still awaited. Defendant
bank, on the other side, also got a private handwriting expert opinion but
for the reasons best known to the bank the same was not proved on record
and the said private expert was not examined.
46. The screen garb of plaintiff's genuine sample signatures are available in
the unrelied private expert report filed by the bank. The original
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 22 of 34
signatures of the plaintiff are also available in the plaint and supporting
affidavits. In the absence of any credible handwritting report this Court
will have to undertake the exercise of comparing the two signatures with
the admitted signtures of the plaintiff as available on judicial record. A
limited comparison can be carried out with the printouts of the pictures
taken from the screen garb of the bank as filed by the bank with the WS.
The law in this regard is well settled.
47. Section 72 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872) is relevant to determine the questions, as
arise in the present suit, which reads as under:
Section 72 of BSA, 2023.- Comparison of signature, writing
or seal with others admitted or proved.
(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person
by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal
admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by
that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that
signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
(2) The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures
for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written
with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person."
(3) This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger
impressions.
48. In case titled Murari Lal vs. State of UP, 1979 Latest Caselaw 247 SC
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are
heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert being not able to
afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the duty of the Court to compare the
wring and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to
the statement that the court is no expert, where there are expert opinions, they will
aid the court, where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some
authoritative text book and the court's own experience and knowledge.
(Emphasis Supplied)
49. In case titled Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr., 2008
(4) SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled as under:
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 23 of 34
"When there is a positive denial by the person who is said to have affixed his
finger impression and where the finger impression in the disputed document is
vague or smudgy or not clear, making it difficult for comparison, the Court should
hesitate to venture a decision based on its own comparison of the disputed and
admitted finger impression. Further, even in cases where the court is constrained
to take up such comparison, it should make a thorough study, if necessary with
the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and
dissimilarities. The Court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere
casual or routine glance or perusal."
(Emphasis Supplied)
50. In case titled Sajin Vs. Nazarudeen, LNIND 2015 KER 1295 of Kerala
High Court it was held that,
"It is well settled that there are three modes to prove the signature or writing of a
person. They are
i. Examining a person who is familiar with the signature or handwriting
ii. Expert's opinion and
iii. Comparison by the Court.
It is well settled that the court is the expert of all experts and the comparison
made by the Court has more value than any other evidence. However, a note of
caution has been struck by the Apex Court that the decision of the Court shall not
be based solely by resorting to the comparison of signature under Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act and that there should be other supporting evidence to justify a
conclusion that the disputed documents were in fact executed by the author of the
document."
(Emphasis Supplied)
51. The exercise of matching the signatures was carried out by the Court
during the course of final arguments with assistance of both the Ld.
Counsels. Upon comparing the two signatures inter se as available on the
8 loan documents it is found that they are strikingly dissimilar and are
poles apart from each other. Since this fact is admitted even by Ld.
Counsel for the bank as also by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, no detailed
discussion is being carried out qua the same.
52. Likewise, the intially appended signatures on the loan documents i.e. the
signatures with an underscore covering almost entire signature, both Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff as well as defendant accept that they are strikingly
dissimilar.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 24 of 34
53. For the sake of convenience the enlarged images of admitted and
questioned signatures highlighting the difference are reproduced
hereunder:
Admitted Signature of Questioned Signature
of Rishipal Singh
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 25 of 34
54. By comparing the penlifts, retouching, trimmers, hesitations, pen pauses,
slow and drag movements apart from the angle at which the signatrues
have been appended .
Notable Variations
i. The oval loop in the alphabet 'r' in the admitted signature available
on record has its curvature on the toe at 90 degree angle whereas in
the suspected signatures the curvature is at a right inclined 60 to 70
degree angle.
ii. The second loop in the alphabet 'r' has a wrongish circle outside
the vertical stroke of the alphabet 'r' in the admitted signatures but
in the questioned signatures the same is crossing the vertical stroke
and entering into the main body of the alphabet leading towards the
left side.
iii. The location of dot/full stop after the alphabet 'r' in the admitted
signature is above or adjacent to the second smaller loop in the
alphabet 'r' but in the disputed signatures it is found to be on a
much lower side.
iv. The point where the pen lift happens at the end of alphabet 'r' the
curvature is flatish and is leaned at 30 to 45 degrees but in the
disputed signatures the curve is on the upward side at an angle of
50-60 degrees.
v. The smoothness of the upper curve is strikingly inconsistent in the
several admitted signatures available on record but in the
questioned signatures it is form consistent and almost identical.
vi. Alphabet 's' in the admitted signature is either vertically oriented or
leans towards left in the admitted signatures but is consistently
leaning towards right in the disputed signatures.
vii. Alphabet 'i' in the admitted signature is connected with alphabet 's'
and is drawn by dragging the pen down in the admitted signature
but in the questioned signature first the pen was up and then comes
down.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 26 of 34
viii. The dot over the alphabet 'i' in almost all the signatures is not a
specific dot but it is like an inverted comma dragged leaning
diagonally towards top left to bottom right but in the questioned
signature it is a clean dot.
ix. The alphabet 'g's lower part does not have a loop and the stroke is
not overwritten and is distinctly angles towards right but in the
questioned signature even though the loop is absent but the
downward stroke is overwritten by an upward stroke leading
towards 'h'.
x. The lower part of the alphabet 'h' is distinctly angular unlike the
questioned signatures where it is roundish/oval curve.
xi. The upper part of the alphabet 'h' in the admitted signature has a
overlap stroke which is distinctively absent in the questioned
signatures.
xii. The distance between the alphabets 'g' and 'h' in the admitted
signatures are much closer and are closely placed as compared to
their placement in the disputed signatures.
55. In the light of above dissimilarities coupled with overall arrangement of
letters it is indicative that the admitted signatures of the plaintiff are
dissimilar to the questioned signatures available on the 8 loan documents.
This Court has no hesitation in concluding that neither of the two
signatures purportedly appended on the 8 loan documents belong to the
plaintiff.
56. In the light of the above conclusion that the 8 loan documents including
loan application, loan agreements etc., are not signed by the plaintiff,
these documents cannot be connected to the plaintiff in any manner.
57. Another important aspect of the matter is that the defendant bank has
failed to establish on record as to how a sum of Rs.2,19,261/- was
transferred from plaintiff's account to the account of Defendant no. 2 even
though no instruction slip, cheque or voucher is available on record.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 27 of 34
58. In the light of the above, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that
plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving the above issues.
Accordingly decree of declaration is passed in favour of plaintiff and
against the two defendants that the loan account no.
4099471849813000001187 purportedly issued by Defendant no. 1 to
the plaintiff is null and void and was a result of a fraud apparently
committed upon the plaintiff. Also a decree of permanent injunction
is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant bank from
deducting any EMI or for that matter any sum in relation to the
above loan no. under any pretext.
59. In the light of the above, plantiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.6,35,854/-
jointly and severally against both the defendants since it is the value of the
money which was deducted from the salary account of the plaintiff by the
defendant bank under a fraud played by Defendant no. 2 apparently in
collusion with the employees of the State Bank of India is personnel/
agents acting on behest of the bank by applying, getting sanctioned and
disbursing the loan in the name of the plaintiff even though he had never
applied for the same.
60. At this juncture Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that post filing of the
suit in hand defendant bank had deducted a EMI on 31.07.2024 for
Rs.24,281/-. Admittedly, this figure is not included into the amount of
Rs.6,35,854/- nor this fact finds mention in the affidavit in chief of PW1.
In the absence of any reference of this deduction either in the pleadings or
in evidence, mere oral arguments at the final arguments stage is found to
be wholly insufficient. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff clarified that the three
EMIs deducted by the bank post passing of the injunction order are not
part of suit claim of Rs.6,35,854/-.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 28 of 34
Interest:
61. As far as rate of interest is concerned, plaintiff has sought 12% interest. It
is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff is a victim of fraud
and his hard earned money was being siphoned off, as concluded supra,
he deserves to be awarded at least 12% interest if not more.
62. Although this plea is opposed by Ld. Counsel for defendant but in the
facts and circumstances plaintiff is found to be entitled to 12% interest
although the above three issues are already answered in favour of
plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
63. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
Accordingly decree of declaration is passed in favour of plaintiff and
against the two defendants that the loan account no.
4099471849813000001187 purportedly issued by Defendant no. 1 to
the plaintiff is null and void and was a result of a fraud apparently
committed upon the plaintiff. Also a decree of permanent injunction
is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant bank from
deducting any EMI or for that matter any sum in relation to the
above loan no. under any pretext. A decree is passed for Rs.6,35,854/-
jointly and severally against both the defendants in favour of plaintiff
with 12% interest. Plaintiff's lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs.50,000/-.
64.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Order on Contempt petition:
65. In continuation of the above discussion now this Court will endeavour to
decide contempt petitoin filed by the plaintiff against Branch Manager
Ms. Priyanka Gupta under Section 39 Rule 2A CPC.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 29 of 34
66. Submissions of both the sides on this application heard. Record perused.
67. Detailed facts and circumstances under which the ad interim ex parte
injunction order was passed by Ld. Predecessor on 31.07.2024 against the
bank are already detailed supra. In his submissions in support of contempt
petition Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently stressed that the relief of
ad interim ex parte injunction was passed by Ld. Predecessor on
31.07.2024. When the Court found that in her zest to recover more and
more money from the plaintiff's bank account three EMIs were deducted
in the month of June 2024 and 2 were deducted in the month of July 2024.
The ex parte stay order granted by the Court in favour of plaintiff and
against the bank was duly served upon the bank in compliance of Order
39 Rule 3 CPC by sending the copy of the stay order and other
documents by speed post which as per tracking report was duly served
upon the bank on 02.08.2024. It is argued that post passing of the stay
order and its due service on 02.08.2024 the bank deducted three EMIs
from the plaintiff's acccount. 2 EMIs were deducted on 30.08.2024 and
one EMI was deducted on 30.09.2024.
68. In her reply to the contempt petition and during the arguments Ld.
Counsel for the contemnor submitted that the copy of stay order dated
31.07.2024 was not served upon the bank. The reply is absolutely silent
qua the date of service of stay order. Mere denial of receipt of stay order is
found to be wholly unacceptable. In the judicial order of this Court dated
09.09.2024 Ld. Predecessor has specifically observed that compliance of
Order 39 Rule 3 CPC already stands filed on 03.08.2024. It is further
observed that as per tracking reports available Defendant no. 1 bank was
served on 21.08.2024 and Defendant no.2 was served on 24.08.2024.
Although as per plaintiff's affidavit stay order was served on the bank on
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 30 of 34
02.08.2024 which is disputed by the bank but admittedly defendant bank
received copy of the stay order on 21.08.2024 through speed post. An oral
bald plea is raised that the speed post envelope of 21.08.2024 did not
reach the contemnor Chief Manager as it was lying awaiting segregation
in the branch and reached her only on 28.08.2024. No specific date is
mentioned in reply to contempt application. The evasiveness of the reply
is writ large from the fact that no admitted date of service of stay order is
disclosed even though it is orally argued that contemnor got to know of it
on 28.08.2024.
69. Even if the contemnor is believed, despite being aware of passing of stay
order at least on 28.08.2024, she went on to deduct two EMIs from the
plaintiff's account on 30.08.2024. She did not relent here and even
deducted another EMI on 30.09.2024 that too after a contempt application
was already filed against her and notice of contempt application was
issued to her and the same was subjudice. It would be appropriate to have
a glance at Order 39 Rule 2A CPC as under:
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC: Consequence of disobedience or breach of
injunction.--
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made
under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction
was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making
the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may
order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be
attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civilprison
for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court
directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than
one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues,
the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may
award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay
the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 31 of 34
70. Plain reading of the above statutory provision shows that any wilful
disobedience or breach of the judicial order can attract civil imprisonment
up to 3 months apart from compensation to be paid to the injured party.
The act of the contemnor Ms. Priyanka Gupta, Chief Manager, State Bank
of India IP Estate of deducting three EMI despite being fully aware of
passing of the stay order by this Court is found to be an act of contempt of
Court as defined under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC punishable with
imprisonment up to three months apart from compensation. The plea that
she reversed the third EMI deducted in 30.09.2024 after few days and
reversed the earlier 2 EMIs deducted on 30.08.2024 lately on 21.07.2025
is found to be too little too late. Plain reading of the entire reply to Order
39 Rule 2A CPC application shows that there is a total defiance by the
contemnor and not a factum of regret or remorse. The law in regard to
contempt is well-settled.
71. In case titled Surya Vadanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 Latest
Caselaw 165 SC on 27.02.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
violation of an interim or an interlocutory order passed by a court of
competent jurisdiction ought to be viewed strictly if the rule of law is to be
maintained. No litigant can be permitted to defy or decline adherence to an
interim or an interlocutory order of a court merely because he or she is of the
opinion that that order is incorrect - that has to be judged by a superior court
or by another court having jurisdiction to do so.
If as a general principle, the violation of an interim or an interlocutory order
is not viewed seriously, it will have widespread deleterious effects on the
authority of courts to implement their interim or interlocutory orders or
compel their adherence.
72. In case titled Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction
Company(P) Ltd. 1996 Latest Caselaw 415 SC on 6 May, 1996,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Before parting with this case, we feel impelled to make a few observations.
What happened in this case is illustrative of what is happening in our country
on a fairly wide scale in diverse forms. Some Persons in the upper strata
[which means the rich and the influential class of the society] have made the
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 32 of 34
'property career' the sole aim of their life. The means have become irrelevant
- in a land where its greatest son born in this century said "means are more
important than the ends". A sense of bravado prevails; everything can be
managed; every authority and every institution can be managed. All it takes is
to "tackle" or "manage" it in an appropriate manner. They have developed an
utter disregard
for law - nay, a contempt for it; the feeling that law is meant for lesser
mortals and not for them. The courts in the country have been trying to
combat this trend, with some success as the recent events show. But how many
matters can we handle. How many more of such matters are still there? The
real question is how to swing the polity into action, a polity which has become
indolent and soft in its vitals? Can the courts alone do it? Even so, to what
extent, in the prevailing state of affairs? Not that we wish to launch upon a
diatribe against anyone in particular but Judges of this Court are also
permitted, we presume, to ask in anguish, "what have we made of our country
in less than fifty years"? Where has the respect and regard for lag gone? And
who is responsible for it?
73. The principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or
keep the fruits of his contempt. In case titled Mohd. Idris Vs. R. J
Babuji, 1984 Latest Caselaw 158 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
.....that undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that the Court is
not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the
things done in violation of its orders. The petitioners therein had given an
undertaking to the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. They acted
in breach of it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of contempt and
imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the
learned Single Judge made appropriate directions to remedy the breach of
undertaking. It was contended before this Court that the learned Judge was
not justified in giving the aforesaid directions in addition to punishing the
petitioners for contempt of court.
74. As far as the quantum of contempt is concerned, it is submitted by Ld.
Counsel for contemnor applicant that the respondent being a lady aged 36
years having minor children may not be sent to civil imprisonment and
requisite compensation may be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff. This
submission of Ld. Counsel for contempt applicant is appreciated and as
such no order of civil imprisonment is passed against the contemnor Ms.
Priyanka Gupta. However, Plaintiff Rishipal Singh is awarded
compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. Out of the same Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 33 of 34
by Ms. Priyanka Gupta and remaining Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid by
State Bank of India.
75.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SURINDER S
SURINDER RATHI
S RATHI Date:
2025.08.19
16:50:04
+0530
(SURINDER S. RATHI)
District Judge,
Commercial Court -11
Central District, THC
Delhi/30.07.2025
CS Comm No.831/2024 Rishipal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Page 34 of 34