Pushpa Minj Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:46723

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4871 of 2025

¶6

1 - Pushpa Minj W/o Late Shri Ajeet Kumar Minj Aged About 56 Years Presently Working As Teacher At Govt. Middle School Gujarwar District - Sarguja (C.G.) R/o Village Gujarwar, Post Patora Tehsil - Lundra District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Devsharan Singh S/o Late Shri Amalsai Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Basnara Post Moharso Tehsil Biharpur District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Ishwar Kujur S/o Shri Benjamin Kujur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sikri P.O. Gajma Tehsil Manora District - Jashpur (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Union Of India Through Department Of Financial Services Ministry Of Finance 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001

¶12

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Directorate Of Institutional Finance Finance Department Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhavan Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governor Reserve Bank Of India 4th Floor Amar Building Sir P.M. Road Mumbai - 400001 (M.S.)

¶14

4 - Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bamk Of India Regional Office Raipur Subhashish Parisar Satya Prem Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Aditya Birla Capital Limited Having Corporate Office At 18th Floor Tower 1, One World Centre Jupiter Mill Compound 841 Senapati - Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road Mumbai 400013

¶16

2

¶17

6 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited (Cifcl) Having Corporate Office At Chola Crest C 54-55 And Super B-4 Thiru Vi-Ka Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai - 600032

¶18

7 - Icici Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Trishul Opposite Samartheshwan Temple Ellis Bridge Ahmedabad - 380006 Icici Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Icici Bank Tower Near Chakli Circle Old Padra Road Vadodara - 390007 Gujarat

¶19

8 - Axis Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Trishul Opposite Samartheshwan Temple Ellis Bridge Ahmedabad - 380006

¶20

9 - Spash Advisor Private Limited Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Pradhan Having Registered Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza Naighar Chowk Chhota Para, Raipur (C.G.) - 492001 Branch Office At Behind Vashundhara City Mall, Near Tulsi Chowk Gangapur, - Ambikapur Surajpur (C.G.) 497001

¶21

10 - Rv Group Through Its Proprietor Abhay Gupta Having Registered Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor Dm Plaza Naighar Chowk Chhota Para Raipur (C.G.) - 492001

¶22

... Respondent(s)

¶23

For Petitioners	: Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate.
For Union of India	: Ms. Sakshi Bali, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. SG.
For the State	: Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate.
For the Bank	: Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate.

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

12/09/2025

¶27

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) :

¶28

3

¶29

“10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to present case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court;

¶30

10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to restrain the Respondent Banks from taking any coercive action against the Petitioners;

¶31

10.3) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 (Banking Ombudsman) to initiate enquiry /investigation against the Respondent Banks and their respective officers with respect to their involvement in the illegal disbursement of personal loans to the Petitioners in gross violation of the notification, circular, and guidelines issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Reserve Bank of India);

¶32

10.4) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 01 and 02 to take necessary action to recover the amount from the Private Respondents as per law;

¶33

10.5) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the Petitioners.

¶34

10.6) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice..”

¶35

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are Government employees and the victims of the Bank forgery case. A Raipur based company namely RV Group and Spash Advisors Pvt. Ltd. through their representatives namely Abhay Gupta, Surendra Singh, Manoj Kumar Pradhan, Ragif Hussain, Manoj Bhagat, Pooja Yadav, Dev Kumar Minj approached to the various government employees across the State including the present petitioners and they assured them to

¶36

4

¶37

provide maximum loan from various Banks. These representatives of RV Group and Spash Advisors Pvt. Ltd. claims that they are having good relation and tie with the reputed banks such as HDFC, ICICI, Bandhan Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, Kotak Bank, Bank of Baroda and having good tie with private finance company such as Aditya Birla, Chola Mandalam, Bajaj Finance, Fullerton India, Finnable and Payasense etc. and they provided assurance to the present petitioners that they will provide them loan from these banks very smoothly and with very few formalities without going to the banks physically. He further contended that The aforesaid representatives of the company who are called connectors, they used to select the persons nearby them who are government employees and who are in need of the money/loan for certain works. The representatives/connectors of these company used to say to the petitioners that based on their salary it is not possible that the bank will sanction huge much amount for them and thereby they motivates the present petitioners that by looking to the RV Group the banks will sanction good amount of loan from them and out of the sanctioned amount of loan the RV Group will take 50% amount that will be kept with them as fixed deposit and RV Group will return the 50% of the amount after some times and also the company will pay the installments for the petitioners for 5 to 6 years and will help the petitioners to clear their loan

¶38

5

¶39

amount. It is futher contended that the

¶40

representatives/connectors came to the house of the petitioners and collected all the relevant documents such as PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Salary Slip, Bank Statement, Form 16 etc. and all these documents were submitted in the bank and the RV Group made the false signatures of the present petitioners on the bank papers. He further contended that the petitioners were not acquainted with this facts that the RV Group has sanctioned loans from different banks whose interest on loan is high by using the documents of the petitioners and by making their false signatures thereby on the bank papers. The RV Group and banks sanctioned the loan for the petitioners without their physical visit in bank and without having any guarantor for the loan, which goes on to show the involvement of the RV Group and bank authorities in the present forgery crime in question. The RV Group gave the blank cheques to the petitioners to as a security but when the petitioners used the cheque in the bank it was bounced with the statement that the signature does not match. Therefore, the blank cheque given for security was bounced and petitioners left with no other option for clearing there loan amount. The RV Group with the banks has sanctioned the loan from different banks and every banks are having their own installments which is deducted automatically from their salary bank account. The petitioners are not having

¶41

6

¶42

enough salary to repay their debts due to which many installments has been bounced on which the banks has issued legal notice to the petitioners and also started recovery process against the petitioners. In The victims ultimately became the guilty and are seeking justice. The petitioners made written complaint in various police station and also made application to the concerned SP but no detailed investigation or inquiry was initiated and the petitioners are still suffering from the unnecessary legal proceedings initiated by the banks for the recovery of the loan amount. The Petitioners are government employees and they have exhausted all the available legal remedies. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred copy of direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India which is Reserve Bank of India (Digital Lending) Directions, 2025 .

¶43

3. Learned counsels for the respective respondents contended that since, the remedy is available to the petitioners to file their applications before the banking ombudsman, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

¶44

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶45

5. For ready reference, Para -7 & 9 of the direction of the Reserve Bank of India (Digital Lending) Directions, 2025 reads as under:

¶46

7

¶47

“7. Assessing the borrower’s creditworthiness

¶48

i. RE shall obtain the necessary information relating to economic profile of the borrower with a view to assessing the borrower's creditworthiness before extending any loan, including, at a minimum, age, occupation and income details. The same shall be kept on record for audit purposes.

¶49

ii. RE shall ensure that there is no automatic increase in credit limit unless an explicit request is received, evaluated and kept on record from the borrower for such increase.

¶50

9. Loan disbursal, servicing and repayment

¶51

i. Disbursement of loan by the RE shall always be made into the bank account of the borrower except for disbursals covered exclusively under statutory or regulatory mandate (of RBI or of any other regulator), flow of money between REs for colending transactions and disbursals for specific end use, provided the loan is disbursed directly into the bank account of the end-beneficiary, RE shall ensure that in no case, disbursal is made to a thirdparty account, including the accounts of LSP, except as provided for in these Directions.

¶52

ii. RE shall ensure that all loan servicing, repayment, etc. is executed by the borrower directly in the RE's bank account without any pass-through account/ pool account of any third party, including the accounts of LSP.

¶53

iii. The flow of funds between the bank accounts of the borrower and the RE shall not be controlled either directly or indirectly by a third-party, including the LSP.”

¶54

6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, submission

¶55

made by learned counsel for the parties, aforesaid direction

¶56

8

¶57

issued by the Reserve Bank of India (Digital Lending) Directions, 2025, particularly the fact that alternative remedy is available to the petitioners to file appropriate application/complaint before the banking ombudsman, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit their application/complaint before the concerned banking ombudsman and in-turn the banking ombudsman shall consider and decide same in accordance with rules/regulation/law governed in the field within a period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of such complaint/application.

¶58

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶59

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶60

J.

Pushpa Minj v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Minj v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamid Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Kawasi Lakhma Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Taturam Sahu Vs the Deputy Registar ( Firms and Society)

Ashok Bera Vs Union of India

Roshan Chandrakar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Radheshyam Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh