AXIS BANK LTD vs M/S BLUE CROSS NETWORK on 20 July 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been fited by the applicant bank, on 20.6.20t9 through Mr' Nitin Sharma' Asstt. Vice President and Branch Head of the applicant under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant no.1 for recovery of a sum of Rs'74,88,558/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @18o/o from date of filing of this O'A' till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.4/M/s EICL Limited is maintaining an account bearing no. 11301 s}. O24O with the

TANOfl3722023 2 ThiruvananthaPuram branch, Thiruvananthapuram, 695004 - Kerala of the applicant/ -Axis Bank Ltd. The said defendant no.4/M/s EICL Limited had issued a cheque bearing no. 7'10548 dated 18.06.2016 in the name of M/s Nevco Engineers for Rs.5,725l-to discharge its liability. The said defendant no.4lMlsEICL had sentthe said cheque through courier namely Professional Couriers on 09'06'2016 which was lost in transit and was stolen by some miscreants' The professional couriers lodged a complaint dated 29.06.2016 with the Police Station Naraina, New Delhi about the above said loss of consignment' It is submitted that the said cheque in question bearing no' 740548 dated 18.06.2016 for Rs'48,62'700/- was materially altered by changing the name of beneficiary from M/s Nevco Engineers to Blue Cross Network- defendant no.1 and the amount was also changed to Rs 48,62,7001- from Rs 57251-' The original cheque is in the possession of defendant no' 3/PNB' who had presented the same in clearing for collection of funds' The said altered cheque was presented at Maharani Bagh Branch, New Delhi of Punjab National Bank' Maharani Bagh Branch, Maharani Bagh' New Delhi- 110014, defendant no' 3 and was sent to CTS clearing and was accordingly paid by the applicant bank by debiting the account of its customer i'e' defendant no' 4/M/s EICL Limited bearing no'113010300000240' maintained with Pattom branch, Thiruvananthapuram' which in turn was credited into the account of defendant no.UM/s Blue Cross Network' who is maintaining an account with defendant no'2/Punjab National Bank, Mulund West Branch, 51' Bhagwan Das Apartment, Zayer Road, Mulund West' Mumbai' Thereafter the customerof ?PplicanV Axis Bank i'e' s).

TANOll372l2023 3 defendant no. 4 M/s EICL Limited informed about the said alleged fraud committed by the defendant no. 1 by its letter dated 22.06.2016 at its Pattom Branch, Thiruvanthapuram. The applicant/Axis Bank in turn had informed the defendant no.2 & 3- Punjab National Bank at its both above said branches at New Delhi and Mumbaivide its e-mails dated 22.06.2016 and made a request to them to mark debit freeze/lien on the account of beneficiary/defendant no' 1 as the defendant no. t had realised the cheque amount fraudulently by making material alteration in the same' By the time information reached to Maharani Bagh Branch, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110014 &defendant no.2-Punjab National Bank, Mulund West Branch' 51' Bhagwan Das Apartment, Zayer Road, Mulund West' Mumbai, the defendant no. l/beneficiary had already withdrawn a sum of Rs'5,10,000/- from the said account. However, the Punjab National New Delhi- Bank, Maharani Bagh Branch, Maharani Bagh' 110014/defendant no.3 herein & Punjab National Bank' Mulund West Branch, 51, Bhagwan Das Apartment' Zayer Road, Mulund West, Mumbai/defendant no'2' had marked a debit frqeze for the remaining amount so credited into the account of beneficiary i'e' M/s Blue Cross Network/defendant no' l/beneficiary' The defendant no' Ubeneficiary M/s Blue Cross Network is having a credit balance of Rs'43,52,118'32 P which is lying under debit freeze as informed/confirmed by defendant nos.2 & 3-Punjab National Bank as per above said e-mails. It is further submitted due to the above said material alteration committed by the defendant no.l-beneficiary of cheque in question' which has resulted a loss of Rs.48,62,700/- which was paid by applicant/ Axis Bank LId q its esteemed customer .4}. I I l i I I

TANOll372l2023 4 defendant no. 4l4ls EICL Limited from ib Thiruvananthapuram branch account. The statement of account of defendant no. 4/showing firstly the debit of cheque amount of Rs.48,62,700/- from its account on 2L.06.2016 and then receiving the said amount of Rs.48,62,7001- Paid bY the aPPlican( Thiruvanthapuram branch (Sol ID 113) on 11'08'2016 duly certified as per The Banker's Book Evidence Act' I fn" O"f"nOant no.l-actual beneficiary and is thus liable to make good for the loss so suffered by the aOpptican( Axis Bahk Ltd. It is submitted that applicanV Axis Bank Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram branch, Thiruvananthapuram as well its customer M/s EICL Limited-defendant no' 4 have already lodged their respective complaints dated 02.08.2016 and 22.06.2016 with the concerned Police Station i.e. Police Station Thiruvananthapuram in this regard. The defendant no'1 had withdrew an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- from its account bearing no' Ir277OO2LOOO23038 maintained with Punjab National Bank, Mulund West Branch, 51, Bhagwan Das Apartment, Zayer Road Mulund West' MumbaF defendant no'2, with dishonest intention fully knowing the fact that the said amount did not belong to it' which has caused wrongful loss to the applicanV Axis Bank and wrongful gain to defendant no' 1' Thereafter' the applicant/ Axis Bank has been informed by the officers of defendant nos' 2 & 3-Punjab National Bank had visited the registered address available as per bank records of defendant no. 1 to advise him to return the said amount of Rs.48,62,700/- to the applicanV Axis Bank, but the defendant no' 1 was not available at the registered address available with the defendant no'2 & 3-PNB. It is submitted that the defendant no' t has not paid any heed to the advicqolthe officers of defendant $'

TANOlt372l2023 5 nos.2 & 3-PNB with dishonest intention fully knowing the fact that the said amount did not belong to it, which has caused wrongful loss to the applicant/ Axis Bank and wrongful gain to defendant no. 1, and the defendant no. t has converted the said amount to its own use and thus have made its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor is liable for criminal misappropriation under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the civil law. It is further submitted that the materially altered cheque in question of Rs.48,62,700/- which was erroneously/by mistake presented by the defendant no. 3- PNB and the amount was credited into the account of the defendant no. 1 being maintained with defendant no.2-PNB with its Mulund branch, Mumbai, and the defendant no. t has subsequently withdrawn Rs.5,10,000/- from the said account and it would be against conscience to allow the defendant no.1 to retain it which has caused injury to the applicant bank. The defendant no. 1 is retaining the said amount at the expense of applicant bank and this has resulted in a loss of Rs.48,62,700/- plus accrued interest and injury to the applicant bank. Thus, the applicant bank is entitled to the restitution/reparation of injury or making good the loss suffered at the hands of the defendant no.1. No one ought to enrich himself at the expense of others. The defendant no. t has been enriched by the receipt of the said amount of Rs.48,62,7001- a fraudulent benefit at the expense of applicant bank and the retention of the said enrichment would be unjust. The defendant no. 1 is thus obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund this credited amount/money. Even in terms of the provisions of section 72 of The Indian Contract Act, the defendant no. 1 is liable to return/refundlP_ay back the amount to CA

TANOlt372l2023 6 the applicant bank. Thereafter, the applicant bank- had advised the defendant no.1 vide its letter/notice dated 10.06.2019 to return/refund the said amount of Rs.48,62,700/- to the applicant/AXls BANK but to no effect. It is further submitted that the applicant bank had also advised the defendant nos' 2 & 3- PNB vide its notice/letter dated 10.06.2019 to release the last balance amount lying under debit freeze of Rs.43,52,118.32 P, which may be subject to furnishing of Indemnity Bond or any other document to the satisfaction of defendant nos'2 & 3-PNB but to no effect. The defendant no. I has failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.48,62,700/- to the applicant bank in-spite of its repeated demands and requests. Since the defendant no. t has intentionally and deliberately failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.48,62,700/-, and is using the money since its credit, the defendant no. t has also rendered himself liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 18o/o per annum, as he has derived the benefit of wrongful payment. The Equity dis favours unjust enrichment. The defendant no.1 is reaping the benefib of an accidenhl windfall i.e' erroneous credit due to mistaken presentation of cheque in question by defendant no.3 and collecting the amount in the account of defendant no' 1 being maintained at defendant no.2 and the applicant bank should not be made to suffer being an innocent payer who has already paid the materially altered cheque amount to its customer i.e. defendant no.4' It is submitted that accordingly, the defendant no. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.48,62,700/- on account of principal and a sum of Rs.26,25,858/- on account of interest on the said principal amount at the rate of 18o/o per annum t\

TANOlt372l2023 7 for the period 21-06-2016 till 20-06-2019, in all a sum of Rs.74,88,558/-. The applicant bank is also entitled to claim interest @ l8o/o per annum on the said application/suit amount of Rs.74,88,558/- from the date of filing of the present application/suit till its realization. The defendant no.1 has failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid application/suit amount of Rs.74,88,558/- to the applicant bank in-spite of its repeated demands and requests and service of notice. The defendant no.1 has taken the payment due to mistaken presentation of materially altered cheque in question by defendant No. 3-PNB and credited the amount in the account of defendant no. 1 being maintained a with defendant no.2. No right has' been created due to said erroneous/by mistake credit and the defendant no. I is liable to return the benefit received. Hence, the present application/suit. The facts and circumstances of the case will lead this Hon'ble Tribunal to the conclusion that the equity and justice demand the grant of relief to the applicant bank. It is further submitted that out of the total amount of Rs.48,62,700/- so erroneously credited in the account of the defendant no.1 being maintained with the defendant no'2. This applicant bank had informed the defendant nos.2 & 3-PNB about the whole issue and had requested them to mark lien in the account for Rs.48,62,700/- which the defendant no' 2 has done upon the request of applicant bank. As on date, the defendant nos. 2 & 3-PNB- has confirmed that the defendant no. 1 in its account maintained with them is having a balance of Rs.43,52,118.32P. This Hon'ble Tribunal may give a direction to defendant nos. 2 & 3 herein [o return/pay back the said balance amount of Rs.43,52,118.32 P by debiting the account of defendant no.1, to the applicant bank. That is why the applicant/ q^'

TANOlt372l2023 bank has impleaded. the Punjab National Bank as defendant no 3, as the cheque in question bearing no. 740548 dated 18.06.2016 was presented through Maharani Bagh, New Delhi branch of Punjab National Bank and defendant no.2-PNB, Mulund Branch, Mumbai, who is having/maintaining the account of defendant no. 1. The applicant/ Axis Bank had already made the paymenVcredited the amount of disputed cheque in question to its customer, M/s EICL Umited, hence has been impleaded as defendant no.4 in the present application. Thus, the defendant Nos.2,3 & 4 are proforma defendants.

3. On notice by this Tribunal, the defendant no.l failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendant no.1 was proceeded against exparte on 13.06.2024. The defendant nos. 2 to 4 put appearance through . counsel and filed written statement and evidence.

5. In their written statement the defendant nos.2 & 3 have denied the facts mentioned in the OA. It is submitted that the amount claimed in the present Original application is not debt under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993' The amount claimed has not been paid by the applicant to the defendant no.4 during the course of any business activity but has been paid to make gmd the loss suffered by the defendant no.4 who is alleged to have been defrauded by the defendant no.1. However, there is no adjudication by any competent court of law that the defendant no.4 has been defrauded by the defendant no.1 by encashing the cheque in question nor there is any direction by anyrcompetent court of law to c,\

TANOl137212023 the applicant bank to pay the said amount to the defendant no.4. Hence this Hon'ble Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present claim of the applicant. It is further submitted that the present claim of the applicant is based on the fact that the defendant no. lhad materially altered the name of beneficiary as well as amount on cheque no. 740548 and got a sum of Rs.43,52,118.32 Paise credited to his account maintained with the Punjab National Bank by fraud. However, the copy of the said cheque does not show any material alteration on the same nor there is any averment in the Original Application that the cheque in question was issued in blank by the defendant no.4' The cause of action to file the present OA is stated to have arisen when the aforesaid materially altered cheque was presented at the office of the defendant no.3 and was in turn credited to the account of the defendant no.1. So, it is the defendant no.4 who is alleged to have been defrauded by the defendant no'1 and ought to have fited the suit for recovery of the amount claimed to have been transferred through fraud against the defendant no.l.The applicant has no locus standi to file the instant O.A. Hence, the present original application is not maintainable' It is prayed that this Hontle Tribunal may decide the present application on merits.

6. The defendant no.4 has filed the written statement and supported the contention of the applicant bank. It is submitted that the defendant no.4 has no objection if the application of the applicant/Axis bank is allowed and the amount lying with defendant nos.2 & 3/ PNB is granted/ordered to be paid to applican( Axis bank. E}

TANOlt37212023

7. The applicant bank and defendant nos.2 to 4 have flled their respective evidence.

8. Heard the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank and perused the record.

9. The main contention of the applicant bank is that the defendant no.4 is maintaining an account with the branch of Thiruvananthapuram and the defendant no.4 issued a cheque dated 18.06.2016 in the name of M/s Nevco Engineers for Rs.5,7251- to discharge his lability. The defendant no.4 has send the cheque through professional couriers on 09.06.2016 which was last in transit and was stolen by some person. The cheque was materially alter by changing the name of beneficiary from M/s Nevco Engineers to Blue Cross Network and the amount was also changed to Rs.4B,62,7OOl'. The Cheque was presented and the amount was credited in the account of defendant no'1' Therefore, the defendant no'1 has committed fraud and had got the benefit of the amount. It is submitted that the applicant has informed the defendant no'2 & 3 and requested to freeze the account. The account of the defendant no.1 was freeze by defendant no'2 & 3 and it is submitted that the defendant no.1 is the beneficiary and therefore, The OA may be allowed against defendant no.l' the defendant no'4 has filed the written statement and written arguments' In the written statement and written arguments the defendant no.4 has admifted the facts narrated by the applicant bank. Therefore, it is clear that defendant no'1 has misappropriated the cheque and change the name of the beneficiary and the amount and got the amount transferred in his account therefore, the defendant no'4 'ex

TANOl1372l2023 ll is the beneficiary and all the payment has been made during the course of the business of the applicant bank and defendant no.2 and 3 bank. The applicant bank has proved all the documents as per Bankers Books Evidence Act. The defendant no.1 has not filed any evidence in rebuttal, therefore, the TA of the applicant bank is liable to be allowed' In the light of the above discussions, the present O.M|-.A. deserues to be allowed against defendant no.1.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant no.1 to pay to the applicant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs'74,88,558/- along with cost, expenses and interest @18% from the date of filing of this O.A which has become T'A' till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recover6d from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no'l'

3) The defendant no.2 & 3 are directed to pay back the amount of Rs.43,52,1L5.321- if the same is lying in the account no.L277 002100023038'

4) Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il' Delhi.

5) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties. SI

TANOlt372l2023 12

5) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 21.09.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. Date:20.07.2026 .5^, (susHrL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has. been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date:20.07.2026 I s"r (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi :1