Bombay HC Upholds Arbitral Award against Securitrans India in ATM Cash Theft Case

The Respondent had outsourced part of its contract with the Banks to the Petitioner  relating to the cash withdrawal and replenishment service at its ATM Centres vide agreement dated 16.8.2010.  Fresh agreement was executed on 4.6.2015. However, the respondent did not pay the amounts of invoices totalling to Rs.25,05,79,968/-. 

However, this was disputed by the petitioner.  It was found on reconciliation of accounts that there was cash difference of Rs.15.89 crores and Rs.7.36 crores at two ATMs of the Bank of India, which, in turn, appropriated the same from the bills payable to the petitioner.   As a result, the petitioner did not pay the due amount to the respondent.

This dispute was referred to the arbitration.

In that context, the question of statutory duty to mitigate losses arose.  

HELD that the present case involves theft of money by the employees of the petitioner and therefore, the principles of mitigation would not apply.

Clause 6.2 of 2010 agreement described the role of SIPL while handling the operations relating to cash and cheques in the custody as “Bailee” for FIS.

Section 151 of the Contract Act provides that a bailee is bound to take as much care of goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would.  Section 152 provides that a Bailee is not liable for loss if care is taken.  Thus, the obligations of the bailee is not just contractual but statutory.

Judgment dated 23.12.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.750 of 2024 of Securities India Private Limited  Vs.  FIS Payment Solutions and Services Private Limited