Dismissed

Mr.K.M.R. Karthikeyan, v. the Banking Ombudsman,O/O. the

Madras HC5 Dec 2024WP(MD)/14023/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable. The court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to challenge disputes arising from banking contract agreements, particularly those involving scheduled banks, as per established Apex Court precedents affecting the Banking Ombudsman and the Bank.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable; no order as to costs.

Mr.K.M.R. Karthikeyan, Vs the Banking Ombudsman,O/O. the — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.14023 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.14023 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.10969 and 10970 of 2017

¶8

K.M.R.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner

¶9

/vs./

¶10

1.The Banking Ombudsman, O/o. the Banking Ombudsman,

¶11

Tamil Nadu and Union Territories of Puducherry and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Reserve Bank of India Building (II Floor), Fort Glacis, Post Box No.40, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶12

2.The Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., rep by its Manager, No.280, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.14023 of 2017

¶18

the impugned order in BO(Che)/3355/C-1300/2016-17 dated 18.10.2016 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and a consequent direction directing the Respondent No.2 to reimburse the prepayment charges to the tune of INR 2, 07,000 for one year.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For R2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed in BO(Che)/3355/C-1300/2016-17 dated 18.10.2016 by the first respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to reimburse the prepayment charges to the tune of Rs.2,07,000/- for one year.

¶22

It had already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the scheduled Bank. Further, the petitioner had entered into a contract with the second respondent for availing the loan. Such disputes cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

2/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.14023 of 2017

¶26

In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as not

¶27

maintainable. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶28

Index : Yes / No 05.12.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm

¶29

3/4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.14023 of 2017

¶32

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.14023 of 2017

¶35

05.12.2024

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

4/4

Mr.K.M.R. Karthikeyan, v. the Banking Ombudsman,O/O. the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.M.R. Karthikeyan, v. the Banking Ombudsman,O/O. the

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

Minor Balaji,S/O.(Late) Vs the Deputy Registrar of

K.Abbas Ali Vs Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Thiru.M.G.Balan Vs the Joint Commissioner

M.Ponnuthai, Vs the Sub Registrar

G.Ayyarsamy Vs the District Collector

V.Amaravathi, W/O.Veeraiyan Vs the District Registrar