S.Saroja Ganesan Vs the RBI Ombudsman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

S.Saroja Ganesan Vs the RBI Ombudsman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to execute an indemnity bond before the Branch Manager (third respondent) on 15.04.2025 or an agreed date; Branch Manager to adjust the Savings Bank credit and collect any shortfall from the petitioners; pledged jewels to be handed over to the petitioners upon satisfaction and receipt of the indemnity bond; photographs/videographs to be preserved by both parties with copies to the Inspector of Police; parties to act on the web copy of the order; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent bank was justified in refusing to return the pledged jewels and adjust the Savings Bank balance on the ground that the mandatory seven-year period from the date the pawnor went missing had not elapsed and there was no declaration of the Court (presumption of civil death). +1 more

Court's answer

The stand taken by the second respondent bank cannot be faulted, as the seven-year period to presume civil death has not yet passed.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the peculiar circumstances — that the petitioner pleads the jewels belong to her and were pledged in the name of her husband, there is no other dispute or rival claim, and the petitioner is ready and willing to execute an indemnity bond — the writ petition can be disposed of with directions.

Key takeaways

Direction (i): The petitioner shall appear before the third respondent (Branch Manager) on 15.04.2025 or any subsequent date agreed by the parties and execute an indemnity bond or such other form as insisted upon by the third respondent.ratio¶38
Direction (ii): The third respondent shall look into the accounts and adjust the amount lying in the Savings Bank; the petitioners shall pay any further amount due; upon satisfaction and after receiving the indemnity bond, the jewels can be handed over to the petitioners.ratio¶42
Direction (iii): Appropriate photographs and videographs shall be taken and held as evidence by both parties, and one set of copies shall be submitted to the fourth respondent (Inspector of Police); parties may act on the web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) — Jewel loan pledge — Missing pawnor — Release of pledged jewels on indemnity bond before lapse of seven-year civil-death presumption. Petitioner challenged the RBI Ombudsman's order dated 03.03.2025 (No. 1RBI/CMS/N202425023620984/2024-25) rejecting her complaint for return of jewels pledged by her husband Ganesan under two jewel loans (missing since 12.10.2022; Crime No.599 of 2022 pending) and for adjustment of the Savings Bank balance, which the bank had refused absent completion of the mandatory seven-year period and any court declaration. Holding the bank's stand unobjectionable on that score, the Court nevertheless, given that the jewels belonged to the petitioner, were pledged in the husband's name, there was no rival claim, and an indemnity bond was offered, directed: (i) appearance before the Branch Manager on 15.04.2025 and execution of an indemnity bond; (ii) adjustment of the Savings Bank amount, payment of any shortfall by the petitioners, and handover of the jewels upon receipt of the bond; (iii) photographs and videographs to be held as evidence with a set of copies to the Inspector of Police. Petition disposed of; no costs; operative on web copy.

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

S.SAROJA GANESAN

G NAVEEN KUMAR

... Petitioners

Vs

THE RBI OMBUDSMAN, THROUGH THE NODAL OFFIER, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001.

CITY UNION BANK LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE, 149, TSR BIG STRET, KUMBAKONAM – 612 001.

THE BRANCH MANAGER CITY UNION BANK LTD, VALASRAVAKKAM, CHENNAI – 87.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T12, SELAIYUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI – 600 073. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 vide No. 1RBI/CMS/N202425023620984/2024-25 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 return the pledged gold

1/7

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

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

jewels to the petitioners in loan amount No.502112058000952 & loan account No. 502112058000993 lying with the respondent bank and directing the 4^th respondent to issue non-traceable certificate in the matter of FIR No. 599/2022 which is pending on his file for the missing person/pawnor Mr.Ganesan.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Koteswara Rao For R2 & R3 : Ms.Padma Priya for M/s.Ananda Gomathy For R4 : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

challenging the impugned order made in No. 1RBI/CMS/N202425023620984/ 2024-25, dated 03.03.2025. By the said

order, the first respondent, namely the RBI Ombudsman, had rejected the complaint made by the petitioner.

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the affidavit filed in support thereof and the other material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the jewels of the first petitioner,

2/7

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

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

which are detailed in paragraph No. 3, were pledged by the first petitioner’s husband, namely Ganesan , who availed two separate jewel loans. Unfortunately, Ganesan has been missing since 12.10.2022. The petitioner therefore approached the bank and has also settled the amount. But, despite filing a missing person case in Crime No.599 of 2022, the first petitioner’s husband remains untraceable. Therefore, when the petitioner sought the return of the jewels as well as adjusting the amount that is lying in the Savings Bank account, the same was refused by the second respondent bank. Consequently, the petitioner approached the first respondent, which also rejected the claim, and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

When the matter came up for admission, it was submitted on behalf of the second respondent bank that it is true that some amount is lying in the credit of the Savings Bank account. However, the mandatory period of seven years from the date of the missing is neither over nor any declaration of Court is there. Therefore, the second respondent bank cannot act at this stage.

The learned Government (Crl.Side) Advocate apearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the missing person complaint is still being pursued and as on date, the husband could not be traced.

3/7

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

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

perused the material records of the case.

The stand taken by the second respondent bank cannot be faulted, as the seven year period to presume civil death has not yet passed. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the petitioner pleads that the jewels belong to her and were pledged in the name of her husband, and where there is no other dispute or rival claim and when the petitioner is ready and willing to execute an indemnity bond, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the third respondent on 15.04.2025, or any other subsequent date as may be agreed by the parties and execute an indemnity bond or such other forms as may be insisted upon by the third respondent.

(ii) The third respondent shall then look into the accounts and adjust the amount, if any, lying in the Savings Bank. Even thereafter, if any further amount is to be paid by the petitioners, the petitioners shall pay the same. 4/7

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

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

Upon satisfaction and after receiving the indemnity bond, the jewels can be handed over to the petitioners.

(iii) Needless to mention that appropriate photographs and videographs shall be taken and held as evidence by both parties and one set of copies can also be submitted to the fourth respondent - Inspector of Police.

(iv) The parties shall act upon the production of the web copy of the

order without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

03.04.2025 1/2

Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl

5/7

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

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

To

THE RBI OMBUDSMAN, THROUGH THE NODAL OFFIER, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001.

CITY UNION BANK LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE, 149, TSR BIG STRET, KUMBAKONAM – 612 001.

THE BRANCH MANAGER CITY UNION BANK LTD, VALASRAVAKKAM, CHENNAI – 87.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T12, SELAIYUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI – 600 073.

6/7

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

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl

W.P.No.11057 of 2025

03.04.2025

1/2

7/7

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