Woman moves Karnataka High Court to recover Rs 3.25 lakh erroneously sent to ‘untraceable’ account holder
The housewife approached the Karnataka High Court after the RBI’s ombudsman upheld Federal Bank’s stance that it can’t reverse the amount without the account holder’s consent.
The woman alerted the bank about the erroneous transfer a day later. (AI-generated image) Last year, Nujaiba Jaleel, a housewife, tried to send Rs 3.25 lakh to her father by RTGS. But she typed the last four digits of his bank account incorrectly and has since been trying to get back the amount, which was erroneously transferred to a dormant account. The bank has rejected her representations, stating that the account holder is untraceable.
On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court heard her petition seeking a direction for Federal Bank to reverse the amount to her account. The court directed the bank to give the address and other details of the dormant account holder, M/s Standard Engineering Works, to Jaleel, so that her counsel can serve a notice on the firm.
Earlier, advocate Muhammad Irshad M H, appearing for Jaleel, said the bank had not provided her with details of the beneficiary account. He submitted that the bank has marked a lien on the amount but refused to reverse it without the account holder’s consent.
For its part, the bank said the amount cannot be reversed without either M/s Standard Engineering Works’ consent or a court order.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the holder of the dormant account was not made a party to the proceedings.
“Procedurally, what they (bank) are saying is right. Your relief will get a bit delayed, but you will get the relief. We will permit you to issue hand summons to the dormant account holder, and if they are not there, they are not there,” the judge orally said.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on June 15.
Jaleel transferred the amount to M/s Standard Engineering Works on December 17, 2025, after erroneously typing 1916 instead of 1619. A day later, she alerted the bank about the error. On December 19, the bank issued written rejections of her representations.
On January 31, 2026, she approached the Reserve Bank of India’s banking ombudsman. However, the ombudsman summarily rejected the complaint on February 19, noting that the bank’s inability to unilaterally reverse funds does not constitute service failure, as regulatory frameworks explicitly require beneficiary consent for such reversals.
Jaleel’s petition states that the banking ombudsman failed to realise that “consent” is impossible to obtain from an “untraceable” person and that the state cannot legally seize a citizen’s money to pay another’s tax.
Jaleel also claimed that being deprived of her own money was a violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution, which says that no person can be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.
Share
