1 CGHC010223732025 2026:CGHC:38447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2867 of 2025 1 - Sudha Kaushal W/o Shri Yashwant Singh Lautre Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Narharpur, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh, R/o. Ward No. 13, Narharpur, Tehsil Narharpur, 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 - 400 001 (M.S.) 4 - Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank Of India, Regional Office Raipur, Subhashish Parisar Satya Prem Vihar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Yes Bank Limited Having Its Head Office At Yes Bank Tower, I.F.C. 02, 23rd Floor, Senapati Bopat Marg, Elphinestone, (W), Mumbai 400013 RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.01 14:10:53 +0530 2 6 - State Bank Of India Having Registered Office At Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021 7 - 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 Vashundhara City Mall, Near Tulsi Chowk, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh – 497001. 8 - Rv Group Through Its Proprietor Abhay Gupta, Having Registered Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para, Raipur, Chhattigarh - 492001. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede and Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocates. For Union of India : Ms. Anmol Sharma, C.G.C. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.08.2026 1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- “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, 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to restrain the Respondent Banks from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner, 3 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 Petitioner in gross violation of the notification, circular, and guidelines issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Reserve Bank of India); 10.4) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to take necessary action to recover the amount from the Private Respondents as per law; 10.5) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.6) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2 By filing the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the illegal and unauthorized action on the part of respondents No. 5 and 6, whereby multiple personal loans of exorbitant amount of Rs. 23,07,000/- have been sanctioned in the name of petitioner without receiving any application from the petitioner. Respondents No. 7 and 8 are the Direct Selling Agents of Respondent Banks and multiple personal loans were approved and sanctioned by the Banks in the name of petitioner via single OTP with the help of 4 private respondents. The private respondents committed fraud upon the petitioner by convincing the petitioner to invest 50% of loan amount in their personal bank accounts and promised to provide high rate of interest /returns. 3 The challenge is also made against the manner in which the Banks have sanctioned the personal loan of the petitioner in gross violations of the notification, guideline, and circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred as 'RBI') titled 'Reset of Floating Interest Rate on Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) based Personal Loans dated 18.08.2023, Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders dated 05.05.2003 and recent Master Circular on Management of Advances dated 01.04.2025, respectively. The detailed advisory and caution regarding sanctioning of personal loans has been provided by RBI to all the Scheduled Commercial Banks. Regional Rural Banks, Primary Co-operative Banks, State Co-operative Banks, and Non-Banking Financial Companies (including Housing Finance Companies) However, without following the guidelines, notifications, and the circulars the Banks have sanctioned multiple personal loans of exorbitant amount on single OTP without any application from petitioner and after disbursement of sanctioned loan, 50% of amount is transferred to another bank account with the help of private respondents and the officers of Banks. 5 4 The petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a member of Schedule Tribe and resident of tribal area Narharpur, Tehsil Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh and the petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Government School. Respondent Banks have intentionally targeted the petitioner from tribal area owing to the fact that she has no knowledge of banking and finance. The collusion between the banks and private respondents is evident from the fact that multiple personal loans sanctioned in the name of the victims were disbursed at once within a time frame of 24 hours, even though the One Time Password (OTPs) were fraudulently obtained days/weeks before the date of disbursement. Immediately upon realizing the fraud, the victims approached the police authorities lodged FIR bearing Crime No.50/2025 in Police Station Kotwali, District Raipur for the offence under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and another FIR dated 08.04.2025 bearing Crime No. 103/2025 was registered in Police Station Kanker, District Kanker for the offence under Section 420, 34, and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already moved the applications before the Banking Ombudsman, which are pending consideration. It has been contended that the petitioner is a low paid employee and she is facing hardship due to the aforesaid act of the Banking employees as well as Companies. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking only a 6 direction to the Banking Ombudsman to decide the matter in accordance with law. 6 Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that since the remedy available to the petitioner to file appropriate applications before the Banking Ombudsman, at this stage, it would be appropriate that a direction be given to the petitioner to pursue remedy before the Banking Ombudsman and the concerned Banking Ombudsman, who has receipt the copies of the complaints is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders while considering the matter on merits in accordance with law. 7 In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file complaint before respondent No.4 i.e. Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India, Regional Office Raipur, Subhashish Parisar, Satya Prem Vihar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh within a period of 15 days and, in turn the Banking Ombudsman concerned is directed to consider the said complaint and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the complaint by the petitioner. 8 Till the complaint is decided by the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned 7 authorities are directed to consider and decide the said complaint strictly in accordance with law. 9 With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju