https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769030 Delhi territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned Banking Ombudsman decision was passed in Delhi, the SBI Regional Office was located there, and part of the remittance trail linked to Delhi. On the merits, the Court applied the RBI framework on unauthorised electronic transactions and held that a customer who did not share OTPs or payment credentials fell within the zero-liability protection. The bank bore the burden to prove customer negligence and, having failed to act promptly to block, trace, or recover the funds, was found deficient in service and liable to reimburse the loss with interest and costs. The Banking Ombudsman's order was set aside for ignoring material facts and RBI directions. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769030 Delhi territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned Banking Ombudsman decision was passed in Delhi, the SBI Regional Office was located there, and part of the remittance trail linked to Delhi. On the merits, the Court applied the RBI framework on unauthorised electronic transactions and held that a customer who did not share OTPs or payment credentials fell within the zero-liability protection. The bank bore the burden to prove customer negligence and, having failed to act promptly to block, trace, or recover the funds, was found deficient in service and liable to reimburse the loss with interest and costs. The Banking Ombudsman's order was set aside for ignoring material facts and RBI directions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769030