[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Surot Jurri vs The Union Of India on 9 April, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1528 of 2026
Surot Jurri S/o Late Shri Mahra Jurri Aged About 58 Years Presently Panchayat
Sachiv, Gram Panchayat, Shahwad, Kanker, District Kanker, R/o Palewa, P.O.
Sahawada, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - The Union Of India Through Department Of Financial Services Ministry Of
Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Institutional Finance,
Finance Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan, Naya
Raipur, (C.G.)
3 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor,
Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai- 400001 (M.S.)
4 - The Office Of Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank Of India, Through Banking
Ombudsman, Reserve Bank Of India, Regional Office Raipur, Sector 24, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492101
5 - ICICI Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At ICICI Bank Tower, Near
Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat
6 - Yes Bank Limited Having Its Head Office At Yes Bank Tower, I.F.C. 02, 23rd
Floor, Senapati Bopat Marg, Elphinestone, (W), Mumbai 400013
7 - Axis Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Trishul, Opposite
Samartheshwan Temple, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad- 380006
8 - Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.04.09
17:39:14
+0530
2
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, Chhattisgarh- 492001 Branch Office At Behind Vasundhara
City Mall, Near Tulsi Chowk, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh-
497001
10 - RV Group Through Its Proprietor Abhay Gupta, Having Registered Office At
Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh- 492001
11 - Abhay Gupta Manager At Spash Advisor Private Limited, Having Registered
Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001
12 - Pooja Yadav Employee At Spash Advisor Private Limited, Having Registered
Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001
... Respondents
Order Sheet
09/04/2026 Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede and Mr. Aniruddh Singh,
counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Central Govt. counsel for
respondent No.1/Union of India.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent Nos.2 and 8.
Heard.
Issue notice to the respondents as per rules.
Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents
accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8,
hence, issuance of notice to them, is dispensed with.
Process Fee be paid within a week for issuance of
notice to only for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 9 to 12.
Also heard on I.A. No.01/2026, application for grant of
interim relief / stay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
respondent Nos.9 and 10 (hereinafter referred to as 'private
respondents') are the Direct Selling Agents (henceforth
referred to as 'DSAs') of respondent Nos.5 to 7 (hereinafter
referred to as 'respondent Banks'). In the month of
December 2023, one Pooja Yadav (respondent No.12), an
employee of private respondents, approached the petitioner
via phone call and offered to provide him a personal loan.
The petitioner agreed to take one personal loan from ICICI
Bank for an amount of Rs 5,00,000/-. In the third week of
December 2023, the petitioner submitted Aadhar Card, Pan
Card, and Salary Slip to the private respondents on
WhatsApp and also shared an OTP. He would further submit
that against aforesaid loan of Rs.5 lakhs, the private
respondents in collusion with the respondent Banks
sanctioned and disbursed multiple personal loans for a total
amount of Rs. 24,05,719/- from the respondent Banks
without consent of petitioner. When the petitioner asked the
private respondents regarding the multiple loans credited in
his bank account, the private respondents directed the
petitioner to transfer 50% of the loan amount in the bank
accounts of the private respondents and promised that the
private respondents would transfer the EMI amount of all
loans in the bank account of the petitioner, every month, one
day prior to the due date of the EMI. Learned counsel further
submitted that the petitioner neither signed any documents
nor physically visited the Banks for disbursement of the loan.
The private respondents informed the petitioner that there is
no requirement of any document for sanction of personal
loan and only OTP is required. It is further submitted that the
private respondents paid EMIs for a few months and
thereafter stopped making payments, therefore, the
respondent Banks are sending recovery agents who are
publicly harassing, abusing and humiliating the petitioner
and his family members to forcefully extort the loan amount,
which was never utilized by the petitioner. Learned counsel
further submitted that 'Guidelines on Managing Risks and
Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services
by Banks' (Annexure -P/7) dated 03.11.2006 has been
issued by the Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI'). Clause
4.1 of aforesaid guidelines provides as under :-
"4.1. The outsourcing of any activity by bank does
not diminish its obligations, and those of its Board
and senior management, who have the ultimate
responsibility for the outsourced activity. Banks
would therefore be responsible for the actions of
their service provider including Direct Sales
Agents/Direct Marketing Agents and recovery
agents and the confidentiality of information
pertaining to the customers that is available with
the service provider. Banks should retain ultimate
control of the outsourced activity."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that complaint was also made to the banking ombudsman of
RBI but it also did not take any action against respondents.
He lastly submitted that agents of respondent Banks are
continuously harassing and humiliating petitioner, hence, he
prays that interim protection may be granted to the
petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on interim application
also, as above.
Learned counsel for the respondents seek time to file
reply.
Two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the
respondents to file reply to the main petition as well as to the
interim application.
However, considering the grievance of petitioner,
respondent Banks are restrained from taking any coercive
action against the petitioner either through their employee or
their recovery agents, till the next date of hearing.
CC as per rules.
List the case after two weeks.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Bini
