Narendra Kumar Dhruv vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 342 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Narendra Kumar Dhruv vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2026

                                                            1




                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                 WPC No. 1039 of 2026

                     Narendra Kumar Dhruv S/o Lilar Ram Dhruv Aged About 46 Years Presently
                     Working As Oag - Ii, C S P D C L Somni, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,
                     R/o 195/d Ruwabandha Sector, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                        ... Petitioner
                                                         versus
                     1 - 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, Chhattisgarh
                     3 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor,
                     Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai - 400 001 (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 492 101
                     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 400 013
                     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
        Digitally
        signed by
        BINI
                     7 - Indusind Bank Limited Having Registered Office At Indusind Bank Limited,
BINI    PRADEEP


                     2401 Gen. Thimmayya Road (Cantonment), Pune - 411001
PRADEEP Date:
        2026.03.12
        11:01:16
        +0530
                                           2

8 - Icici Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At Icici Bank Tower, Near
Chakli    Circle,    Old     Padra      Road,      Vadodara     390007,    Gujarat
9 - Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
10 - Sparsh Advisor Private Limited Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar
Pradhan, Having Its 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
11 - Rv Group Through Its Proprietor Abhay Gupta, Having Its Registered Office
At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh - 492001
12 - 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
13 - 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

11/03/2026 Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede and Mr. Aniruddh Singh, counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vinay Pandey Dy. Adv. General for the State/respondent Nos.2 and 9.

Mr. Aman Saxena, counsel for respondent No.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, 8 and 9, hence, issuance of notice to them, is dispensed with.

Process Fee be paid within a week only for respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 10 to 13.

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.10 and 11 (hereinafter referred to as 'private respondents') are the Direct Selling Agents (henceforth referred to as 'DSAs') of respondent Nos.5 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Banks'). In the month of May, 2024, one Pooja Yadav (respondent No.13), 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 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. for an amount of Rs 5,00,000/-. In the first week of June, 2024, 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. 35,50,000/- 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