[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vipin Kumar Netam vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1070 of 2026
Vipin Kumar Netam S/o Late Shri Sarju Ram Netam Aged About 39 Years
Presently Posted As Assistant Grade II, Veterinary Services, R/o Quarter G-
Type, Dugdhdairy Parisar, Village- Kanhargoan, Tehsil Bhanupratappur, District
Kanker, 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, (C.G.)
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 492101
5 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited (CIFCL) Having
Corporate Office At Chola Crest, C54-55 And Super B-4, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial
Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600032
6 - ICICI Bank Limited Having Its Registered Office At ICICI Bank Tower, Near
Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390007, Gujarat
7 - Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.03.13
10:19:45
+0530
2
8 - 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
9 - 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
10 - 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
11 - 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
12/03/2026 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. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General for the
State/respondent Nos.2 and 7.
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 7,
hence, issuance of notice to them, is dispensed with.
Process Fee be paid within a week only for
respondent Nos.3 to 6 and 8 to 11.
Also heard on I.A. No.02/2026, application for grant of
interim relief / stay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
respondent Nos.08 and 09 (hereinafter referred to as 'private
respondents') are the Direct Selling Agents (henceforth
referred to as 'DSAs') of respondent Nos.5 and 6
(hereinafter referred to as 'respondent Banks'). In the month
of June, 2024, one Pooja Yadav (respondent No.11), 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
Cholamandalum Investment for an amount of Rs 5,00,000/-.
In the last 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. 12,70,000/- 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
