Chattisgarh High Court
Johnson Ekka vs Government Of India on 3 September, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
SHOAIB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
ANWAR
2025:CGHC:44839-DB
ANWAR Date:
2025.09.04
NAFR
10:39:59
+0530
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 : Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate
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. Heard Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. 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 Officer at LIC Office, 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
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 And thereafter he withdrawn total amount of Rs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:-
"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,
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
₹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
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
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
