Disposed

V.Gajendiran v. The Banking Ombudsman

Madras HC4 Nov 2019WP/26658/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 26658 of 2019, the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Banking Ombudsman to consider a representation regarding a loan account. The court observed that the Ombudsman had already disposed of the representation and the petitioner acknowledged receipt. The court recorded these

What did the court decide?

No further consideration of the matter; petitioner to work out remedy before competent forum if any grievance remains. No costs.

V.Gajendiran Vs The Banking Ombudsman — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 26658 of 2019

¶2

V. Gajendiran ... Petitioner

¶3

-vs-

¶4

The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai.

¶5

The Branch Manager, AXIS Bank, Omalur Branch, Salem. ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2019 relating to the Loan A/c. No. 916030064489482 on the file of the Second Respondent.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Manimaran For Respondents: Mr. C. Mohan, (For R1) for M/s. King & Patridge M/s. M.R. Uma Vijayan, (For R2)

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Heard Mr. R. Manimaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. C. Mohan, Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent and M/s. M.R. Uma Vijayan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶10

The Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the First Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2019 relating to the Loan A/c. No. 916030064489482 on the file of the Second Respondent.

¶11

The First Respondent has filed a report on the action taken in which it has been informed that the said representation dated

¶12

1/2

¶13

16.07.2019 made by the Petitioner has been disposed by order No. BO(Che)/1921/201920006004828/2019-20 dated 23.10.2019 passed by the First Respondent and a copy of the same has been produced . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement acknowledging its receipt. Nothing remains for further consideration in the matter.

¶14

Recording the aforesaid subsequent events, the Writ Petition is disposed. It is made clear that if the Petitioner still has any grievance to be redressed in the matter, it is open to him to work out his remedy for necessary relief before the competent forum in the manner recognized by law. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai.

¶21

+1cc to M/s. King & Patridge, Advocate sr.91049

¶22

W.P. No. 26658 of 2019

¶23

sai(co) nr 13/11/2019

¶24

2/2

V.Gajendiran v. The Banking Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gajendiran v. The Banking Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Vijaykant, Age 62 Years, Vs the Public Prosecutor

A. Vijaykant, Age 62 Years, Vs the City Public Prosecutor

A. Vijaykant, Age 62 Years, Vs the Public Prosecutor

D.Subramanian, Vs The Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

V.Vijay Babu Vs The Regional Director

C.Kumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu