Bombay High Court: A petition was filed wherein the petitioner claimed compensation for the delay caused by Respondent 1, Yes Bank (the ‘Bank’) in opening a bank account and its insistence on Aadhaar Card as a mandatory document to open a bank account despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 (‘K.S. Puttaswamy Case’). The Division Bench of M.S. Sonak* and Jitendra Jain, JJ., held that there was an unjustified delay in opening a bank account over Aadhaar insistence and thus, ordered the Bank to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation to the petitioner.
Background:
The petitioner had premises in Bombay and wanted to rent them out and was facing difficulties due to the lack of a bank account in its name. It approached the Bank in January 2018 for the opening of the account to which the Bank informed that an Aadhaar Card was mandatory. The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy Case (supra) and contended that insisting on an Aadhaar Card for opening a Bank account was not legal or proper. But the Bank did not yield, leading to the present petition being filed in June 2018.
The Bank made a statement, when the matter was taken up by the coordinate Bench, that it would not insist on Aadhaar Card for opening the petitioner’s bank account and it was recorded in an order dated 29-11-2018. The account was opened in January 2019 following the above order which also issued a Rule on the prayer for damages. But the Bank did not file a reply on the matter of compensation.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the Founder-Director of the company had already passed away and was survived by his 84-year-old wife, one daughter, and the petitioner. It was also stated that they could not gain any income by renting the premises from January 2018 to January 2019 because of the Bank’s refusal to open the account. Alleging that the rent in the area was in the range of Rs 1.5 lakh per month, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs 10 lakh.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court took note that in April 2018 when the Bank insisted upon the Aadhaar Card, interim orders made by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy Case (supra) were operating which required that bank accounts were to be opened only if the party produced proof of having applied for an Aadhaar Card. But upon the final disposal of the case on 26-9-2018, the requirement of Aadhaar Card for opening a bank account was struck down. Therefore, the Court opined that there was no justification for not opening the bank account after 26-9-2018.
Calling the claim for compensation of Rs 10 lakh exaggerated, the Court held that it could not be granted. The Court also noted that no reply to the claim for compensation was filed by the Bank despite being given the opportunity. The Court pointed out that the renting of the premises held by the company provided some relief to the 84-year-old surviving director and her unmarried daughter and hence did not relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy and further directed the Bank to pay the petitioner compensation of Rs 50,000 within a period of eight weeks from the date of order and disposed of the Rule in this petition.
[Microfibers (P) Ltd. v. Yes Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2535, decided on 26-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice M.S. Sonak
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Niyam Bhasin.
