In a complicated legal fight between Securitrans India Private Limited (SIPL) and FIS Payment Solutions, the Bombay High Court decided on a disagreement about managing cash for ATMs. The case involved claims of theft and financial differences, resulting in a decision where both sides won parts of their claims.
Location and Date: The case was heard in Bombay, with the decision reserved on December 10, 2025, and announced on December 23, 2025.
SIPL, which handles ATM cash services, and FIS, a financial technology company, had agreements from 2010 and 2015. The disagreement started when SIPL claimed they were owed over ₹25 crores for unpaid bills, while FIS claimed they lost ₹23 crores because of alleged thefts by SIPL employees.
Old and New Contracts: The original agreement in 2010 was renewed in 2015, outlining SIPL's job in managing ATM cash. Problems began when FIS accused SIPL of not accurately keeping track of cash withdrawals, leading to big financial losses.
The Theft Allegations: FIS found a cash shortage in ATMs managed by SIPL, accusing SIPL's employees of stealing. This led to police reports and efforts to figure out the exact losses.
Judge's Observations: Judge Sandeep V. Marne looked at the evidence, including emails and reports, and concluded that SIPL's employees were involved in the theft. The court noted that while SIPL argued they weren't responsible, the contract clearly stated they had to keep the cash safe.
Contractual Obligations: The court stressed that SIPL had a legal and contractual duty to protect the cash. The agreements did not require FIS to check transactions with banks every day, as SIPL argued.
Mixed Outcomes: The court granted SIPL ₹25 crores for unpaid services but also ordered SIPL to pay FIS ₹23 crores for the losses caused by the thefts. The decision balanced both sides' claims, recognizing the breaches of the contract and the resulting financial effects.
The court's detailed look at the evidence and contract terms led to a balanced decision, showing the complexities of financial service agreements and the legal expectations of parties involved in such disputes.
