Reserve Bank of India Vs Pawan Netam

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48695

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

REVP No. 299 of 2025

¶6

1 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai - 400 001 (M.S.)

¶7

2 - Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank Of India, Office Of Banking Ombutsman New Address Sector-24 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Pin 492101 (C.G.) (Now New Address Is Mentioned As Old Address Is Now Changed)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Pawan Netam S/o Shri Jagdish Ram Netam Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Primary School Kurubhath, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) R/o Dumarpani, Post- Dumarpani, Tehsil - Narharpur, District- North Bastar (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Union Of India Through Department Of Financial Services Ministry Of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Institutional Finance, Finance Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Yes Bank Limited Having Its Head Office At Yes Bank Tower, I.F.C. 02, 23rd Floor, Senapati Bopal Marg, Elpinestone, (W), Mumbai 400 013

¶13

5 - State Bank Of India Having Registered Office At Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 021

¶14

6 - Spash Advisor Private Limited Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Pradhan, Having Registered Office At Office No. Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para, Raipur (C.G.) Branch Office At Behind Vashundhara City Mall, Near Tulsi Chowk, Gangapur, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) 497 001

¶15

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.07 11:29:59 +0530

¶16

2

¶17

7 - Rv Group Through Its Proprietor Abhay Gupta, Having Registered Office At Ff, 1st Floor, Dm Plaza, Naighar Chowk, Chhota Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 ----Respondents

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

(Cause-title	taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Respondent No.	: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede & Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocates
For UOI	: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC along with Ms. Shewta Rai, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A.
For SBI	: Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶21

23/09/2025

¶22

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :

¶23

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to review the order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 3274/2025 and further be pleased to recall the order directing the applicant Ombudsman to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the Petitioner in WPC No. 3274/2025 (Respondent No. 1 herein) for interim relief and this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to kindly consider directing that the interim relief which was granted by this Hon'ble court may be extended till the disposal of the complaints by the Applicant Ombudsman, in the larger interest of justice.”

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners / respondents in the writ petition respectfully submits the review petitioners, who are officials

¶25

3

¶26

discharging statutory duties under the Reserve Bank of India’s regulatory framework, have challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3274 of 2025, primarily on the ground that the said order was passed without issuing notice or hearing the present review petitioners, and without affording them an opportunity to assist the Court on the legal and factual position regarding the powers and functions vested in the Ombudsman under the Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021.

¶27

3. It is most respectfully submitted that under Clause 8 of the aforementioned Scheme, the Ombudsman does not have any statutory authority or jurisdiction to entertain or grant interim relief in any form, including orders of stay, restraint, or protection, as has been envisaged in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 30.06.2025, the original petitioner has already filed complaint before the Ombudsman, along with applications seeking interim relief/stay against coercive action by the concerned Banks. However, upon receipt and scrutiny of these applications, the office of the Ombudsman, after taking legal opinion and following consultations with higher authorities in the Reserve Bank of India, has arrived at the considered view that the direction to consider and grant interim relief is beyond the scope of powers conferred upon the Ombudsman under the governing Scheme. It is submitted that the review petitioners have the highest regard for the directions issued; however, they are duty- bound to act strictly in accordance with the statutory mandate of the Scheme under which they operated. In view of the legal embargo on granting

¶28

4

¶29

interim relief, the review petitioners are placed in a situation of administrative and legal conflict, and therefore, seek indulgence of this Court to review or modify the directions issued in the order dated 30.06.2025 to the extent that they required the Ombudsman to consider and decide applications for interim relief. It is further submitted that to ensure that the original petitioners are not left remediless, the Court may kindly consider extending the interim protection already granted restraining the Banks from taking coercive steps against the petitioners until the Ombudsman disposes of the complaints on merits, in accordance with law.

¶30

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have no objection to the submissions made by the review petitioners.

¶31

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

6. Perusal of the record would show that vide order dated 30.06.2025, this Court had passed the order in WPC No.3274/2025 to the following effect :

¶33

“6. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that since the remedy available to the petitioners to file appropriate applications before the Banking Ombudsman, at this stage, it would be appropriate that a direction be given to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the Banking Ombudsman and the concerned Banking Ombudsman, who has received the copies of the complaints on 15.05.2025 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners and to pass appropriate

¶34

5

¶35

orders while considering the matter on merits in accordance with law.

¶36

7. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are directed to file appropriate applications for grant of interim relief before Respondent No.4 i.e. Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India, Regional Office, Raipur, Subhashish Parisar, Satya Prem Vihar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), within a period of 15 days and in turn the Banking Ombudsman concerned is directed to consider the said applications and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the applications by the petitioners.

¶37

8. Till the applications for interim relief are decided by the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.

¶38

9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant petition stands disposed rights and contentions of the parties are left open.”

¶39

7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioners and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer made in the instant review petition is just, fair, and grounded in statutory limitations imposed under the Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, particularly with regard to the lack of power vested in the Ombudsman to grant interim relief.

¶40

6

¶41

8. Accordingly, the instant review petition is allowed to the extent that the direction issued in paragraph 7 of the order dated30.06.2025, whereby the Ombudsman was directed to consider and decide the applications for grant of interim relief filed by the original petitioner, stands recalled.

¶42

9. However, in order to safeguard the interests of the petitioners in the writ petition and to prevent any irreparable harm pending adjudication of her complaint before the Ombudsman, it is directed that the interim protection granted vide order dated 30.06.2025 restraining the Banking Authorities from taking coercive steps against the petitioner shall remain in force until the final decision is rendered by the Ombudsman on the complaint filed by the petitioner, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

¶43

10. It is clarified that the Ombudsman shall proceed to decide the complaint on its own merits strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, uninfluenced by any observation made in the earlier order dated 30.06.2025 or in the present order.

¶44

11. With the aforesaid observations / directions, instant review petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

Reserve Bank of India v. Pawan Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reserve Bank of India v. Pawan Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramvichar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Upendra Kumar Chawda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Tirupati Build -Con Pvt. Ltd., Vs Rahul Agrawal

Deepak Dang Vs Indial Oil Corporation Limited