https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757352 A recovery action based on alleged bank fraud failed because the plaintiffs did not prove unauthorized transfer, statutory breach, or entitlement to monetary relief. The suit was held maintainable and within limitation; the deficit court fee was treated as curable under Section 149 CPC. On the merits, the plaintiffs failed to show that plaintiff no. 2 had ceased to be an NRI without notice to the bank, or that the cheque instructions were fabricated, forged, or affected by signature mismatch. The alleged FERA violation was also not established, as the transaction was treated as an Indian rupee transfer. The suit was dismissed. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:14:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757352 A recovery action based on alleged bank fraud failed because the plaintiffs did not prove unauthorized transfer, statutory breach, or entitlement to monetary relief. The suit was held maintainable and within limitation; the deficit court fee was treated as curable under Section 149 CPC. On the merits, the plaintiffs failed to show that plaintiff no. 2 had ceased to be an NRI without notice to the bank, or that the cheque instructions were fabricated, forged, or affected by signature mismatch. The alleged FERA violation was also not established, as the transaction was treated as an Indian rupee transfer. The suit was dismissed. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757352