Court issued an order after Bank officer cleared 47 checks using forged signatures

The Kerala High Court has mandated that Bank of Baroda reimburse clients who suffered financial losses as a result of the bank clearing fraudulent checks.  47 checks with fake signatures were cleared by a Bank of Baroda (formerly Vijaya Bank) personnel.  Of them, 15 were account payee checks, which were finally recovered, and 32 were paid to third parties, making the money hard to retrieve.

Many clients suffered significant financial losses as a result of the fraud, which went unnoticed for three months.  Following their initial complaints to the bank, several clients filed lawsuits.

According to the bank, it cleared the checks in accordance with all the correct processes and shouldn't be held accountable because the forgery might have been done by an insider or someone close to the consumers.

The Kerala High Court, however, dismissed each of these claims.

Key Points from the High Court Judgment

The High Court said that:

The Bank Was Negligent

The court said that the bank did not properly verify the signatures on the cheques. Many of the forged cheques.Did not match the specimen signatures kept by the bank. In some cases, no specimen signatures were even available.

 

Forgery Confirmed by Vigilance Reports

A vigilance officer’s report, accessed by the customers under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, clearly showed that the cheques were forged. This report became a key piece of evidence in court.

1.      Bank’s Refusal to Accept the Report Was Rejected

The bank said the vigilance report was invalid because proper procedure wasn’t followed. But the court ruled that:

The bank did not prove what was wrong with the procedure.

The burden was on the bank to prove that the report was incorrect, but it failed to do so.

2.      Legal Principle from the Supreme Court Applied

The High Court cited the Supreme Court case Canara Bank vs. Canara Sales Corporation (1987), which said:

o    If a cheque’s signature is forged, the bank has no legal right to process or pay it.

o    Even if the customer was careless (e.g., lost cheque book), the bank still cannot escape responsibility unless the customer knowingly allowed the fraud.

Final Court Order

The trial court’s earlier decision was overturned. Bank of Baroda was ordered to refund the full

amount of the forged cheques. The Court ordered bank to pay 6% interest per year from the date

the case was filed until full recovery. The bank was also ordered to pay legal costs.

Why Court ruled against Bank

1. Burden of Proof on the Bank

The court clarified that once a forgery is proved:

o    The bank must prove it wasn’t at fault.

o    The bank cannot blame the customer unless it proves the customer was involved or ignored signs of fraud.

2. Internal Reports Can Be Used as Evidence

     The bank’s own internal vigilance reports were used in court against it. The judgment makes it clear that if a report points to negligence, the bank must prove why it is wrong—just denying it is not enough.

Read More

Consumer Commission fined the branch manager of PSU Bank in ATM fraud case

The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Shamli has fined the branch manager of Punjab National Bank (PNB), Gadhipukhta a total of ₹55,153 in a case involving an unlawful withdrawal of ₹10,000.

Actual Case

A man named Rampal Singh, who lives in Rajhad village, filed a complaint on October 3, 2018 against two banks. (1)PNB Gadhipukhta Branch (2)ICICI Bank, Shamli Branch

He claimed to have a PNB Gadhipukhta savings account. He took out ₹10,000 from an ICICI Bank ATM in Shamli on July 23, 2018. He then had ₹2,062.59 remaining in his account. However, on July 24, 2018, he received an SMS warning stating that a further ₹10,000 had been taken out of his account while he was at home with his ATM card. He was perplexed by this and called his bank right away. He was instructed by the bank employees to make a complaint by calling the toll-free number. He claimed to have done so on August 3, 2018, but he never heard back. Later, on August 27, 2018, he even mailed a legal notice.

Meanwhile, on August 29, 2018, he received ₹16,044 in his account as a sugarcane payment. However, the bank only deposited ₹7,953 into his account after deducting ₹7,937 in costs and adjusting ₹153 (overdraft). When Rampal Singh visited the Shamli branch of ICICI Bank to view the CCTV footage, he was instructed to return in a week. The problem persisted even after multiple visits to the branch. He made a formal request to see the video on September 20, 2018, but once more, nothing happened.

Consumer Commission Decision

The Commission, which was chaired by Hemant Kumar Gupta and included members Amarjit Kaur and Abhinav Agarwal, heard the case and decided in favor of Rampal Singh. 

They issued the following directives: 

The withdrawn sum of ₹10,153 must be given back to Rampal Singh together with 12% simple interest. 

He will receive ₹20,000 for his financial, emotional, and physical suffering. ₹5,000 will be used to cover legal costs. 

For unfair practices and poor service, the bank was also fined ₹20,000, which will be paid to the government treasury rather than the complainant. 

The case describes how a customer lost money as a result of an unauthorized ATM withdrawal. The consumer court intervened and punished the bank for its carelessness after the bank failed to address the customer's numerous complaints.

Read More

CBI arrests proclaimed offender in historical bank fraud case involving Rs 5.69 lakh at Bank of India(BOI)

Satish Kumar Anand, who was designated a Proclaimed Offender in a bank fraud case involving ₹5.69 lakh from Bank of India, has been taken into custody by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case began on May 5, 1978, when the CBI filed a complaint against three individuals:

1. The Branch Manager of a Bank of India branch
2. Satish Kumar Anand
3. Ashok Kumar

CBI alleged that the branch manager and Satish Kumar Anand worked together in a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank.

• The bank manager, while working at the branch in 1977, sanctioned a loan to a private company.
• The loan was given based on fake receipts and false bills, showing goods had been sent out, when in reality, no such shipment took place.
• As a result, the bank lost ₹5.69 lakh, and this amount wrongfully benefited Satish Kumar Anand.

After investigating, CBI filed a chargesheet in the Special CBI Court in Dehradun.

• In 1985, the court convicted Satish Kumar Anand and Ashok Kumar, sentencing both to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000.
• The bank manager was acquitted (found not guilty).

How Did Satish Kumar Anand Become a Proclaimed Offender?

After being convicted, Satish Kumar Anand disappeared and did not serve his jail sentence. The CBI Court in Dehradun, on 30 November 2009, officially declared him a Proclaimed Offender, which means he was legally marked as an absconder.

After years of being on the run, CBI arrested Satish Kumar Anand on 25th June 2025. He will now be presented before the Special CBI Court in Dehradun, where further legal action will be taken.

More details will be released soon.

Source -hellobanker.in

Read More

State Bank of India (SBI) Bank Probationary Officer (PO) Recruitment 2025 Notification Released

The formal announcement for the hiring of probationary officers (PO) for 2025 has been made public by the State Bank of India (SBI). Starting on June 24, 2025, the online application process will run through July 14, 2025. This recruitment, which offers 541 positions, including backlog postings, is being carried out under Advertisement No. CRPD/PO/2025-26/04.

For complete details such as vacancy breakdown, exam pattern, eligibility, age limit, application steps, and selection process, read the full notification.

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Overview

Organization	State Bank of India (SBI)
Post Name	Probationary Officer (PO)
Advertisement No.	CRPD/PO/2025-26/04
Vacancies	541
Job Location	All India
Last Date to Apply	14 July 2025
Mode of Application	Online
Category	SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Notification
Official Website	bank.sbi

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Important Dates

• Apply Online Start Date: 24 June 2025
• Last Date to Apply: 14 July 2025
• Pay Exam Fee Last Date: 14 July 2025
• Preliminary Exam: July / August 2025
• Main Exam: September 2025
• Group Discussion & Interview: October / November 2025

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Application Fee

• General/ OBC/ EWS : Rs. 750/-
• SC / ST / PWD : Rs. 0/-
• Mode of Payment : Online

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Age Limit

• Minimum Age : 21 Years
• Maximum Age : 30 Years
• Age Limit as on 01/04/2025
• Born Between : 02/04/1995 To 01/04/2004
• The age relaxation will be given as per the rules.

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Educational Qualification

• Candidates must have a Bachelor’s degree in any discipline from a recognized university.
• Final-year students are eligible to apply provisionally, but they must submit proof of graduation on or before 30th September 2025.
• Applicants with professional degrees such as CA, Engineering, Medical, etc., are also eligible to apply.

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Vacancy Details

Post Name

Vacancies

Probationary Officer (PO)

541

SBI PO Recruitment 2025 Notification PDF

Notification PDF	Click Here
Apply Online	Click Here

thhh

Read More

Government plans to disinvestment stake in 5 PSBs

 According to a report, the government is planning to accelerate the process of selling its ownership in public sector banks (PSBs) as part of a significant push towards disinvestment and reforms in the banking industry. 

 Additionally, it insisted that the hiring of merchant bankers to supervise the transactions is nearing completion, suggesting that the process is accelerating. 

 The sources that for the next six months, the government intends to sell up to 20% of its shares in five public sector banks (PSBs): Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Punjab & Sind Bank, Central Bank of India, Bank of Maharashtra, and UCO Bank. The Offer for Sale and Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP) routes will be used to carry out the share sales.

In the case of UCO Bank, for example, the Center hopes to raise Rs 2,500 crore by selling up to 10% of the company. To meet the capital and operating needs of the individual banks, the money earned from the sale of PSB stakes will be utilized. 

 This action is a component of the government's plan to decrease direct ownership in state-owned banks while simultaneously strengthening their balance sheets. In her 2021–22 Budget speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had previously declared that the government would pursue the privatization of two PSBs in addition to IDBI Bank.

According to information on the BSE website, as of the end of September, the Indian government owned over 93% of Central Bank of India, 96.4% of Indian Overseas Bank, 95.4% of UCO Bank, and 98.3% of Punjab and Sind Bank. Listed corporations must maintain a 25 percent public shareholding, according to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI); however, government-owned businesses are exempt from these requirements until August 2026.

Read More

Bank Unions and Management Held a Conciliation Meeting Today; Talks about PLI and 5 Days Banking

 

With reference to the information in the conciliation minutes dated April 29, 2025, the parties' discussions have begun today. As stated in the final paragraph of the conciliation proceedings on April 29, 2025, it is noted at the outset that the representatives from the Bank of Maharashtra, State Bank of India (later one representative joined, but not at the proper level), Central Bank of India, UCO Bank, and IOB (later one representative joined, but not at the proper level) were once more absent. In order to ensure that their representatives of the proper level are always sent, it was agreed to write a letter to the top management of each bank.

All other issues contained in the conciliation proceedings dated 29.04.2025 were also reviewed with following outcomes:

All other issues contained in the conciliation proceedings dated 29.04.2025 were also reviewed with following outcomes:

What Bank Unions Said? What happened in Meeting

(i) There was an improvement in the matter of PLI as intimated by the Ld. Representative of DFS that it is proposed to give flexibility to the banks’ board for identification of officers in different brackets in each scale, within the ambit of the PLI scheme. However, the Ld. Representatives of unions were not agreed. Accordingly, after marathon discussion it is agreed that representatives of union and the IBA to discuss the issue threadbare at bipartite level and come up with certain proposal within the ambit of the scheme. 

Such proposal shall be submitted to the DFS for review of the present scheme in the light of the proposal so that a consensus may be arrived at in order to maintain smooth and cordial relation in the industry. At this juncture, it is expected that all the banks shall cooperate by not implementing the PLI scheme for any scale till the outcome of the discussions.

The committee/the group so created for discussion on the issue of the PLI is also mandated to discuss the issue of outsourcing / recruitment of sub-staff and submit a report.

(ii) So far recruitment and the data in this regard is concerned, some of the banks have submitted but lack of consistency and uniformity is observed. Accordingly, the committee/group so created for discussion on PLI is also advised to collect the data on recruitment in an appropriate format so that consistency and uniformity is maintained and submit the same on the next date of hearing.

(iii) Despite issue of a letter by DFS to all the Chief Secretaries of the States to look into the security issue of banks against attack on bank staffs, one fresh instance of attack at Dhule in State Bank of India has been reported which is not only unwarranted rather painful and unbearable. In view of this fact, IBA is requested to advise all the Banks to take immediate steps to avoid any such occurrences in future.

(iv) The issues related to 5 days banking, the matter discussed in length, a D.O. letter bearing No. 21(17)/2025-IR dated 16.06.2025 has already been sent to the Secretary, DFS. The representative of DFS informed that the issue is under consideration of the Government.

The next date of conciliation proceedings is fixed on 11.08.2025 at 11.30 AM.

Read More

The number of employees at PSU banks is steadily declining: Report

According to a data compiled by the daily, PSBs including Bank of India, Canara Bank,Bank of Baroda and Uco Bank witnessed a drop in its employee size, whereas the State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank saw a slight increase in the headcount.

According to the research, Bank of India's workforce decreased from 52,374 in the fiscal year (FY) 2023 to 50,944 in 2024 and then to 50,564 in 2025. The number of employees at Canara Bank similarly declined, going from 84,978 in FY23 to 82,638 in FY24 and 81,260 in FY25. Bank of Baroda also continued to reduce, going from 76,513 in FY23 to 74,227 in FY24 and then even lower to 73,742 in FY25. From 21,698 in FY23 to 21,456 in FY24 and then to 21,049 in FY25, Uco Bank's workforce shrank.

On the other hand, for SBI, which is the largest PSB in India, there was a slight recovery after falling from 235,858 in FY23 to 232,596 in FY24. In FY25, the headcount increased to 236,226, the report stated. Meanwhile, PNB also saw its employee count increase slightly from 102,319 in FY23 to 102,349 in FY24 before slightly falling to 102,316 in FY25.

Concerns have been expressed by a number of bank unions regarding the recent decrease in employee numbers. Bank workers also protested earlier this year in a few towns. They have claimed that having too few employees is affecting both customer service and employee wellbeing. The chief secretaries of states and union territories have allegedly been urged by the finance ministry to raise awareness among bank workers and ensure that the public gets uninterrupted service. This follows social media posts and news stories detailing instances of physical assault, verbal abuse, and threats of violence against bank employees on the property.

Read More

Supreme Court opens FIR Against Bank of India(BOI) in Gold Loan Case

A businessman obtained a loan from the Bank of India's Motijhil Branch in order to obtain the money he needed. On July 22, 2020, he was granted a loan of ₹7,70,000 after pledging 254 grams of 22 carat gold pieces as security. The payback of this loan is the point of contention. 

The appellant claims that after receiving a notification from the bank on October 7, 2022, requesting payment of ₹8,01,383.59, including interest, he paid the amount on March 31, 2023. He was unaware that the bank had revalued the gold he had pledged and had taken ₹1500 out of it for expenses.

His requests to return the gold that had been committed were denied for years. However, the bank claims that he failed to repay the loan, which is why the gold became a bank asset. 

 When it was purportedly reported by a valuer other than the one who had initially assessed the appellant's gold at the time of the loan that the material pledged was not gold in reality but rather gold plated on top of other metals, the aforementioned gold was revalued in order to recover the money involved in the transaction and was discovered to be counterfeit.

Additionally, the appellant filed a formal complaint against the bank's branch and credit manager for violations of Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

The Patna High Court granted the respondent's (bank manager's) request to have the FIR quashed. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been submitted in response to this. The FIR against the bank has now been reopened by the Supreme Court.

Court Order

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra said that the High Court had looked at the bank’s policy to prevent and detect fraud and also considered the removal of the first valuer. 

Based on this, the High Court concluded that the bank had no bad intentions. It also said that the person who filed the case (the appellant) had tried to get a loan from the bank with bad intentions.

However, the judges of the Supreme Court stated that they were unable to comprehend how the High Court arrived at this result because genuine evidence is necessary to determine someone's purpose. They further questioned how, in the absence of evidence, the High Court determined that the applicant had a hidden motivation. 

 The Court added that there's still a chance the bank misappropriated money. When the High Court dismissed the FIR (police report), it failed to adequately take this into account. Furthermore, the bank failed to have a third party confirm the second valuer's findings. 

 Therefore, it is impossible to say with certainty that nobody from the bank or the valuers did anything improper with the gold that the appellant pledged without considering all of the available evidence.

Read More