Remanded

Pandian Chemicals Ltd, v. the Deputy Governor Cum

Madras HC20 Apr 2022WP/9210/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court interpreted the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. It held that levying processing charges without notice falls within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction under sub clause (k) of Clause 8. The Court set aside the rejection of the complaint and remitted it for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.12.2009 set aside; the complaint remitted to the Banking Ombudsman to be disposed of within four weeks.

Pandian Chemicals Ltd, Vs the Deputy Governor Cum — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2022

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶4

W.P.No.9210 of 2011

¶5

Pandian Chemicals Limited represented by its Managing Director D.Manoharraj 17-A, Vallabhai Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai 625 002 ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Deputy Governor cum Appellate Authority – Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building Shahid Bhagath Singh Road, Mumbai – 400 001. 2. Banking Ombudsman, Office of the Banking Ombudsman for Tamil Nadu and Union Territories of Puducherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Reserve Bank of India Building Second Floor, Fort Glacis 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. 3. State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, 6, West Velli Street, Madurai – 625 001 ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ in the nature of writ Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent pertaining to Order No.CSD/BOS/8011/13.23.13/2010-11 dated

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

16.03.2011 confirming the order of the Second Respondent bearing No.BO (Che)/14236/C-498/2009-10 dated 24.12.2009 and quash both the orders and consequently direct the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the complaint of the petitioner dated 18.06.2009 on merits.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.Ramanathan

¶12

For Respondents : No appearance (R.1 & R.2)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has availed financial credit facilities from the third respondent bank for Rs.3.80 crores. The respondents bank charged processing charge of Rs.280/- per lakh and the petitioner has made a request on 24.02.2006 to the third respondent for reduction of processing charge. The bank by its letter dated 11.07.2006 reduced the processing charge from Rs.280/- to Rs.140/- per lakh and also reduced the interest to 10%. However, this concession was only for the period from 16.11.2005 to 15.11.2006.

¶15

The petitioner filed a complaint dated 18.06.2009 to the Banking Ombudsman and it was rejected on the ground that the complaint does not fall within the purview of Clause 8 of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to sub clause (k) of Clause 8 of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 and submits that levying charges without adequate prior notice to the customers falls within the purview of redressal of grievance by the Ombudsman. Therefore, the complaint given by the petitioner with regard to levying of processing charges without notice to the petitioner very well falls within the purview of Banking Ombudsman Scheme.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents in the counter stated that reducing of processing fee was for the period from 16.11.2005 to 15.11.2006 and on and after 15.11.2006 the usual charges will be levied. Accordingly, the present charge is Rs.400/- per lakh. But, there is no detail as to the communication sent to the petitioner with regard to revision of

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

processing charge or withdrawal of concession given to him.

¶20

There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter has to be considered by Banking Ombudsman which very well falls within the purview of sub section (k) of Clause-8 of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.

¶21

Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Banking Ombudsman dated 24.12.2009 and accordingly, the order dated 24.12.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner dated 18.06.2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

¶29

1.The Deputy Governor cum Appellate Authority – Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building Shahid Bhagath Singh Road, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶30

Banking Ombudsman,

¶31

Office of the Banking Ombudsman for Tamil Nadu

¶32

and Union Territories of Puducherry and

¶33

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

¶34

Reserve Bank of India Building Second Floor, Fort Glacis 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, 6, West Velli Street, Madurai – 625 001

¶37

+2cc to Mr.AR.Ramanathan, Advocate SR.No.26887

¶38

W.P.No.9210 of 2011

¶39

EV(CO) CB(03/06/2022)

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Pandian Chemicals Ltd, v. the Deputy Governor Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandian Chemicals Ltd, v. the Deputy Governor Cum

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

Dr.a.R.Abdul Rafeekq Vs the Chairman

Indian Railway Supervisors Vs Integral Coach Factory

M/S.Pentamedia Graphics Ltd., Vs Union of India

Dr.P.Balakrishnan Vs the Chennai Metropolitan

S.Lalitha, Vs The District Collector

M.v.Sekar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.