FININ2MINJudgment Intelligence

Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

High CourtOperative order controlsFull text available; primary replacement pendingLater-history check open
Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending. Open full judgment PDF. Verify against the issuing court/tribunal record before legal reliance.

Case in 2 minutes

The reported judgment applies the RBI customer-liability framework to disputed electronic transactions. It records findings of customer involvement/gross negligence and dismisses the writ; exact transaction evidence must be read from the official judgment.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalAllahabad High Court
Case numberWrit-C No. 24192 of 2022
Decision date2025-07-17
Assessment year
Law familyBanking / RBI
OutcomeOperative order controls

Sections / provisions: RBI Customer Liability Circular 06-07-2017

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

  • Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence: The reported judgment applies the RBI customer-liability framework to disputed electronic transactions. It records findings of customer involvement/gross negligence and dismisses the writ; exact transaction evidence must be read from the official judgment.
SOURCE-DRIVEN CASE RECORD - condensed from the packaged judgment copy

Material facts and background

'(20)*+,(-./01*2,13,02*/4*202015*64 ,(-./01*720811-*39)02*:;2;5*64 < 4 78%$=8 ! >9 >373 >453548 3  ? @8  88 3 > 1AB*CDE*7ECFCFAGEBH +I J5K LIMN7O LP LQRS 1AB*CDE*2EHTAGUEGCH +IN > QSQPLQR SOL  V$$P!" M  RL  V$WP!" ,(-./01*2,13,02*/4*202015*64*+*OKS X K   OSY Z L L R  &ZO7 S   Z4 L XO OK   S OQKVLZO SS RZX ZN LNSL R [O JZ L\O ZZLS]SK L  $^_ LSQ JZ 4 L \O ZZLS]SK L  ^_SO R  V NY`` LZ LZSaPWaP!!!b  R S QZK   SOZ %c 10'd2  OZR N eZOKS X K    SL LY X#

12 345758989 5 21758989 5 21518451 5758952 84845157 7958 8459575895 7 7958 497951598459581 5 19189 2 2 58989 54157558 18 98457 58 2 494 1419145981998 984998  2  !1 2 " ! 57589511895 581#919982 2 $ %5&   758989 5 2815 51 8 2"' () !9818758989 5 2 18455185 845191 8 1815 581 # 182 *955 845758989 5 251+2,2 185%5  9-5-9595.8189 -99/95519 2  1845758989 5 295171988 57 58 25198451955005582 2 5919558459189 57 58 758989 5 177 145849- 8518457558 98758989 2 123453462378298:54646235;7 "2 34551 55177519 541845758989 54115 845 999 < 12 ,8984515845758989 58418579855999181 719159955 4998581189 415 551 958984591#182 2 345918#51 11155595 5=588815 5 84518758989 5 2884518758989 5 22 2 > 189 415581#55984584595...

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

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

12456764848969 89764858846 641856 9657666489456764848969  56764848969 58656587 946 97648456664489 5856 86 68848979645661698869246456 846 641945968 695897 9 !"#$# % 5 68 6245954986489494561889 6 124566 696945674865 6976645666 4 69945664568 84869165919454567486 & 46769456'6184()684648 66648* 6 8642*45676484896 6694456 848921645666 4489 5166 968864212456764848964566 6 16 644998849456846 6418949 +6,-*. 46 8456949/0.*..*...(14,-.2..456949 /3*2%*...(14,-4,,42567648489696646964867 9 9564567 956944545166664916 45986246 6 988246 64945694 585 66616688212456764848969 48456844669 456764848964544562668 69+6,-*. 68 845  99484...

1246789 899 99 988 9 779 898696678998  2 979 76 669!9 9"  8!699  9998698 ! 996789 2  2#!9 6 96689 9 9 " 99 6789 7988 9 889 $9 6789 989 "99   "8 696 769 9" 9779 898692 %&'()*)+,-().&)/)+012.345+1*,6 7846789 8  9 88667 7 9 779 8986989688  29688 9 8887 96  6789 $8768  88 9 ! 9 6 98$96789 99 8879 ! 989779 8986999"2488 667 9 9 ! 99779 89869 8 9"2  9688 9 8!89 9779 8 69 6"986989 99" 996789 $7988 9889  9 8 798 "89  6 96 769 9" 9!996789 99 "8769869$9 ! 9869996789 8999 98697  9 ...

;79 $9 ! 988 " 8$96789 989 8! 9 "8< !! !62<"88!  9

12345679325965524139739276545653 964321574293272152359743323529 925324937477466467915764325 4 921965565194595121577254359 22 5735739277346792515514665921 4933247965

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

Operative decision and relief

12345679325965524139739276545653 964321574293272152359743323529 925324937477466467915764325 4 921965565194595121577254359 22 5735739277346792515514665921 4933247965

!"#$%&$'%%& ()2129 9573926545653547294395721 262395453474359774666529324*

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

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

  • No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

  • Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
  • Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
  • For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Do not over-read this case

  • The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
  • Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
  • Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence

Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.

Compare this caseBrowse by section

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority levelHigh Court
Reliance effectBinding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law.
Source integrityA sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Subsequent historySubsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Finin2min statusLater-history check open

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

  • Your dispute raises the same core issue: Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence.
  • The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: RBI Customer Liability Circular 06-07-2017.
  • Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
  • Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Allahabad High Court considered: '(20)*+,(-./01*2,13,02*/4*202015*64 ,(-./01*720811-*39)02*:;2;5*64 < 4 78%$=8 ! >9 >373 >453548 3  ? @8  88 3 > 1AB*CDE*7ECFCFAGEBH +I J5K LIMN7O LP LQRS 1AB*CDE*2EHTAGUEGCH +IN > QSQPLQR SOL…

Weaker / distinguishable when

  • A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
  • The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
  • Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
  • The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Ors.?

The reported judgment applies the RBI customer-liability framework to disputed electronic transactions. It records findings of customer involvement/gross negligence and dismisses the writ; exact transaction evidence must be read from the official judgment.

Which facts mattered most to the result?

'(20)*+,(-./01*2,13,02*/4*202015*64 ,(-./01*720811-*39)02*:;2;5*64 < 4 78%$=8 ! >9 >373 >453548 3  ? @8  88 3 > 1AB*CDE*7ECFCFAGEBH +I J5K LIMN7O LP LQRS 1AB*CDE*2EHTAGUEGCH +IN > QSQPLQR SOL  V$$P!" M  RL  V$WP!" ,(-./01*2,13,02*/4*202015*64*+*OKS X K   OSY Z L L R  &ZO7 S   Z4 L XO OK   S OQKVLZO SS RZX ZN LNSL R [O JZ L\O ZZLS]SK L …

What did the Allahabad High Court ultimately decide?

12345679325965524139739276545653 964321574293272152359743323529 925324937477466467915764325 4 921965565194595121577254359 22 5735739277346792515514665921 4933247965 !"#$%&$'%%& ()2129 9573926545653547294395721 262395453474359774666529324* +,-+./01,23 456789:;<5=98;>7<5?:5@A957:?89>7BC56B86;<785D?;<C5>A?D5@A7@5@A95E;8C9F…

What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?

The decision turns on Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?

The case engages RBI Customer Liability Circular 06-07-2017. The relevant statutory version for — should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.

When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?

The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.

Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?

Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.

Section / provision impact

  • RBI Customer Liability Circular 06-07-2017 — RBI Customer Liability Circular 06-07-2017 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.

How the decision changes your analysis

1. Frame the issue

Before using this authority, frame the issue under RBI Customer Liability Circular 06-07-2017 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.

2. This judgment

The decision turns on Unauthorized electronic banking transaction and customer negligence. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

3. Current use

Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.

Case network: similar and different outcomes

Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository

Related cases with a different result

Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.

Working-paper citation

Suresh Chandra Singh Negi & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda, Writ-C No. 24192 of 2022, Allahabad High Court, decided 2025-07-17

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Packaged source classSANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING
Pages7
SHA-25614802856e96f1ddcd1b61adb53e582d94e4687083b7ed2e45e4fcf60fd8554ed
Original source URLNot exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger.
Source authenticationSanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending

Related Finin2min guidance