'Gullible Public Being Misled': Bombay High Court Orders Takedown Of Fake DBS Bank WhatsApp Groups, Websites

Observing that the “gullible public” is being misled and that “time is of essence” as delays can cause “irreversible loss” in cases of financial fraud, the Bombay High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining unidentified persons from impersonating DBS Bank India Limited and its officials.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order dated April 21, 2026, directed platforms including WhatsApp and domain registrars to disable fraudulent profiles, groups, and websites used to mislead the public into making investments under the bank's name.

The court observed, “Time is of essence as delayed reaction is likely to cause irreversible loss to the victims.”

Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for DBS Bank, submitted that the bank had been targeted by a “coordinated campaign of impersonation and financial fraud," with unidentified individuals posing as its representatives through WhatsApp and other channels.

According to the pleadings, the fraudsters used forged employee identity cards, fake certificates of incorporation and fabricated SEBI registration certificates to gain credibility and induced victims to invest through accounts such as “DBS Securities Foreign Investment Account”.

They also operated WhatsApp groups using the bank's name and the profile of its CEO, Rajat Varma, to offer stock market advice. In one instance cited before the Court, a retired police officer allegedly attempted suicide after being duped of Rs.8 crore.

WhatsApp, through Senior Advocate Vivek Reddy, opposed the grant of blanket directions, submitting that messages on its platform are end-to-end encrypted and cannot be accessed.

It argued that action should be taken on a case-by-case basis upon specific identification of infringing groups, in line with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which contemplates action upon a court order or authorised government direction.

Rejecting this contention, the court held:

“It is therefore unacceptable that the intermediary can act only if there is an order of Court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a specified group.”

The Court further observed:

“The consequences of such an action can have a grave impact as the gullible public is induced in believing that these financial/investment advice emanates from the Plaintiff which is a well known banking network having about 490 branches across more than 350 locations and providing services to a vast consumer base.”

The court held that such conduct amounted to passing off and misrepresentation.

Accordingly, the Court restrained several unknown defendants from misusing the DBS name and directed domain registrars to suspend and block fraudulent websites, including, inter alia, m.indiadbs.me, m.dbsindia.vip and app.dbscooperation.com.

It further directed intermediaries to act within the timelines prescribed under the IT Rules upon receiving complaints from the bank supported by evidence such as screenshots.

The court also directed disclosure of basic subscriber information, including IP logs, contact details and registration data, to help identify those operating the fraudulent groups.