1 - Johnson Ekka S/o Shri Jowakim Ekka, Aged About 57 Years R/o C v. 1 - Government Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Expenditure, Room
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:39:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:44839-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 647 of 2025 1 - Johnson Ekka S/o Shri Jowakim Ekka, Aged About 57 Years R/o C- 59 Nature City, P.O. Sakri, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Government Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Expenditure, Room No. 76, New Delhi. 2 - Reserve Bank Of India, Through Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road, District Mumbai, Maharashtra. 3 - Axis Bank Limited, Through Its Director, Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli Mumbai, District Mumbai Maharashtra. 4 - Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
and it is settled law that contracts vitiated by fraud are void ab initio under Sections 17 and 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The appellant had also produced his bank statement reflecting the fraudulent credit and withdrawal of amounts 5 ₹12,24,701/- and ₹9,00,000/- within 48 hours, yet the learned Single Judge ignored this vital evidence. Instead of calling upon the respondent bank to explain the unauthorized transactions or directing an inquiry into the irregularities, the Court erroneously held that no ground for interference was made out, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available in the record. 7. Bare perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner had challenged the letter dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P/3), which contained a repayment schedule relating to a personal loan account allegedly in the petitioner’s name. It was the petitioner’s case that he had never availed such loan and that his bank account was fraudulently misused by an unknown person, against whom FIR No. 936/2024 has been registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(5), 111(4), 323, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act. Contention of the petitioner that despite the fraud, he was being harassed on the basis of the said
Arguments
: Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. 2. Heard Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPC No. 3747 of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is working as Administration OfÏcer at LIC OfÏce, Bilaspur, C.G. On 07.12.2024 the petitioner received a call from an unknown person pretended to be the employee of axis bank. Thereafter, he assured the petitioner and got his personal details including ATM card details and PAN card details. Subsequently, the unknown person fraudulently applied for loan of Rs. 12,24,701/ and Rs. 9,00,000/- to the bank account of the 3 petitioner. And thereafter he withdrawn total amount of Rs 26,74,701/- from the petitioner's bank account. In this way an unknown person committed fraud against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged FIR at police station Sakri, District Bilaspur. On which the police of arrested the accused and presented chargesheet before the Chief judicial magistrate. Meanwhile the Axis Bank vide impugned letter dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P3) is demanding monthly installments / EMI of Rs. 43,950/- from the petitioner for repayment of the loan which the petitioner has never applied for. The said transactions were unauthorized regarding which the petitioner has made his complaint and subsequently legal proceedings has been initiated against the accused. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to repay the loan. The petitioner has suffered a huge financial loss. He is mentally and financially distressed. The petitioner has not taken any loan from the bank. Therefore, he is not liable to pay EMI/ monthly installment to the Bank. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- 4 “Given the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is very well aware of the facts therefore the petitioner has not made any ground in the present writ petition which warrants interference by this Court. As such, the present writ petition liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submit that the learned Single Judge failed to adjudicate the matter comprehensively on merits and erred in dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage without issuing notice to the contesting respondents, particularly Axis Bank. It is urged that the impugned loan transactions were the result of impersonation and cyber fraud, as is evident from the FIR lodged at Police Station Sakri, the arrest of the accused, and the filing of the charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant never executed any loan agreement,
Decision
repayment schedule, which led to the filing of the writ petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no 6 recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the repayment schedule merely indicates the loan amounts of ₹12,24,701/- and ₹9,00,000/- allegedly disbursed from his account. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no good ground was made for interference, which is a subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ appeal. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good ground for interference in the matter at this stage. 9. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the competent forum in accordance with law. 10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib