Everything You Need to Know About Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Act

The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 is the law that governs digital payment systems in India -- the framework within which NEFT, RTGS, IMPS, UPI, ECS, and other electronic fund transfer mechanisms operate.

Section 25 of this Act addresses a specific situation: an electronic funds transfer that was initiated to discharge a debt or liability but failed because the payer's account had insufficient funds or the amount exceeded a pre-arranged limit.

In plain terms: if you set up a digital payment to repay a loan EMI, a credit card due, or any other legally enforceable debt, and that payment bounces because there was not enough money in your account, Section 25 may potentially apply.

The section is intentionally structured to parallel Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which governs cheque bounce cases. Both provisions criminalise dishonour -- whether by cheque or by electronic transfer -- when the dishonour is in the context of debt repayment.

The key word throughout Section 25 is "may apply" -- not "automatically applies." The section is specific about the conditions that must be satisfied before any criminal liability attaches.

Section 25 is not triggered by every failed digital payment. It applies only when a specific set of conditions are all satisfied simultaneously. If any one condition is absent, the section cannot be invoked.

The four conditions are:

Condition 1: An electronic funds transfer was initiated. The payment must have been made through an electronic channel -- NEFT, RTGS, IMPS, UPI, ECS, auto-debit mandate, or similar. Cash payments and cheque payments are governed by different laws.

Condition 2: The transfer was dishonoured due to insufficient funds or exceeding the pre-arranged limit. The failure must be because the payer's account lacked sufficient balance, or because the amount exceeded whatever limit was pre-arranged with the bank. Technical failures, bank errors, or incorrect payee details are different situations and do not fall under Section 25.

Condition 3: The EFT was intended to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is a critical condition. The failed transfer must have been made to repay a genuine, legally enforceable obligation -- a loan EMI, a credit card payment, a court-decreed amount. A voluntary transfer, a gift, a transfer for a non-debt purpose, or a payment for goods or services does not fall under this section.

Condition 4: The beneficiary followed the prescribed notice procedure. The beneficiary (lender or creditor) must issue a written demand notice to the payer within 30 days of receiving information from the bank about the dishonour. If the payer does not make the payment within 15 days of receiving this notice, the lender can then initiate proceedings under Section 25. If the notice was not sent within 30 days, or if the process was not followed correctly, Section 25 cannot be invoked.

All four conditions must be present. The absence of any one of them is a complete defence against the invocation of Section 25.

If all four conditions are met and the payer fails to make the payment within 15 days of receiving the notice, the lender can file a complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Under Section 25, the penalty on conviction is imprisonment for a term up to two years, or a fine of up to twice the amount of the dishonoured electronic funds transfer, or both.

These are the maximum penalties. In practice, courts in Section 25 cases, as in cheque bounce cases under Section 138, typically encourage resolution between the parties -- particularly when the payer demonstrates willingness to pay and the failure was circumstantial rather than deliberate. Courts often facilitate settlement, and a case is compounded (discontinued) when the payer pays the outstanding amount plus any agreed compensation to the complainant.

The criminal route is expensive and time-consuming for lenders as well. Most prefer resolution. This is why, in many Section 25 situations, the notice itself is an invitation to negotiate rather than a final step toward prosecution.

Understanding the boundaries of the section is as important as understanding what it covers.

Section 25 does not apply to failed payments caused by technical errors from the bank's end -- system downtime, processing errors, incorrect routing. These are the bank's liability, not the payer's.

It does not apply to voluntary transfers, gifts, or payments for goods and services. The transfer must have been specifically to discharge a legally enforceable debt.

It does not apply if the lender did not follow the notice procedure exactly. The written demand notice must be sent within 30 days of the bank's communication about the dishonour. If this timeline is missed, the section cannot be invoked.

It does not create automatic criminal liability. The conditions must all be satisfied, the notice procedure must be correctly followed, and a court must find the conditions proven before any penalty applies.

Myth: Every failed EMI or digital payment leads to a criminal case. Not true. A failed payment only creates Section 25 liability when all four conditions are met -- including the legal enforceability of the debt and the correct notice procedure. Routine payment failures from tight cash flow do not automatically result in criminal proceedings. Myth: The lender can file a case directly without a notice. Not true. The lender must first send a written demand notice within 30 days of the dishonour. Only after the payer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving that notice can the lender initiate legal proceedings. A case filed without this notice procedure is procedurally defective. Myth: Section 25 applies to UPI payments sent to the wrong account or for the wrong reason. Not true. The transfer must be intended to discharge a legally enforceable debt. A UPI payment to a friend, a purchase payment to a merchant, or a transfer for any non-debt purpose is outside the scope of Section 25. Myth: "I didn't know my account balance was low" is a valid defence. Not true. Ignorance of insufficient funds is not a defence under Section 25. If the conditions are otherwise met, the reason the account had insufficient funds does not determine liability -- the dishonour itself does. Myth: Section 25 applies to failed cheque payments. Not true. Cheque bounce is governed by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 25 applies specifically to electronic funds transfers.

Receiving a Section 25 notice is alarming. It should not cause panic -- but it requires prompt, deliberate action.

Step 1: Read the notice carefully. Understand exactly what it says. Note the amount mentioned, the date of the failed transaction, the date the notice was sent, and the specific demand being made.

Step 2: Check the timeline. Was the notice sent within 30 days of the bank communicating the dishonour to the lender? If not, the prescribed procedure has not been followed and the notice may be defective.

Step 3: Respond within 15 days. Once you receive the notice, you have 15 days to either make the payment or send a written response if you have valid grounds -- for example, that the transfer failed due to a technical error rather than insufficient funds, or that the notice procedure was not followed correctly.

Do not ignore the notice. An unanswered notice within the 15-day window leaves no defence against subsequent legal proceedings.

Step 4: Consider a settlement. In most cases, the lender's goal is recovery of the debt, not prosecution. If the amount is genuinely owed and the funds are available, paying promptly with written confirmation of receipt is the fastest resolution.

Step 5: Engage legal help if needed. If the notice is defective, if the debt is disputed, or if you believe the conditions of Section 25 are not met, engage a lawyer with experience in payment system disputes or negotiable instruments matters before responding.

Most people who receive Section 25 notices are not deliberately avoiding payment. They are in a situation where income is insufficient to meet all obligations -- and a payment that was set up in good faith failed because the account ran short before it arrived.

The underlying problem is almost always not the failed payment. It is the debt structure -- too many obligations competing for too little income.

FREED helps people in exactly this situation. When debt obligations are restructured through consolidation, or when outstanding dues are resolved through settlement, the monthly pressure that leads to failed payments is reduced. Accounts stabilise. Payments that were previously bouncing begin to clear.

Addressing a Section 25 notice is the immediate problem. Addressing the debt structure is the lasting solution.

FREED is India's leading debt resolution platform. We have helped over 60,000 Indians reduce, manage, and completely get out of debt -- legally and without harassment.

We offer Debt Consolidation, Debt Resolution, Credit Score Rebuilding support, and FREED Shield protection against recovery harassment. Every first consultation is free.

Visit freed.care