Dismissed¶40

M/s. Sriram Engineering company v. the RBI Ombudsman

Madras HC21 Jul 2026WP/11301/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226; writ of certiorarified mandamus; RBI Ombudsman; summary nature of ombudsman proceedings; complaint No. N202425027012358; TamilNad Mercantile Bank; GST refund delay; excess bank guarantee charges refund Rs.1,58,054/-; NPA / non-performing asset classification; remedy before competent forum not ombudsman; perversity and non-application of mind; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; Madras High Court; 2026.

What did the court decide?

On the first grievance, the bank clarified that the application itself was made belatedly by the petitioner and the ombudsman, taking note of that fact, observed that there was no delay on the part of the second respondent bank; this grievance stands addressed. ¶30

M/s. Sriram Engineering company Vs the RBI Ombudsman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the RBI Ombudsman dated 26.09.2025 suffers from perversity and non-application of mind such as to justify quashing and reconsideration of complaint No. N202425027012358. +3 more

¶24

Court's answer

The ombudsman considered all materials and concluded the grievances have been addressed with nothing further to adjudicate; since proceedings before the ombudsman are summary in nature, the Court held the grievances addressed and it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if still aggrieved.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

¶30

Key takeaways

On the second grievance, the bank upon review found excess charges were levied towards the bank guarantees and, after deducting applicable charges, refunded Rs.1,58,054/-, informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2025; the ombudsman had taken note that the excess amount has been refunded.ratio¶34
If the petitioner considers the classification of its account as NPA to have been wrongly made, the remedy lies before the competent forum and not before the ombudsman.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J; order made by the Chief Justice) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the RBI Ombudsman's order dated 26.09.2025 on complaint No. N202425027012358 concerning TamilNad Mercantile Bank. On grievance (i), GST-refund delay: the application itself was made belatedly by the petitioner and the ombudsman observed no delay on the bank's part. On grievance (ii), excess bank-guarantee charges: the bank, upon review, found excess charges were levied and, after deducting applicable charges, refunded Rs.1,58,054/- (letter dated 30.07.2025), which the ombudsman noted. On grievance (iii), NPA classification: the Court held the remedy lies before the competent forum and not before the ombudsman, whose proceedings are summary in nature. Holding the grievances addressed, the Court found no merits and dismissed the petition with no order as to costs (21.07.2026).

¶1

WP No.11301 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

WP No.11301 of 2026

¶10

M/s. Sriram Engineering company Rep. by its proprietor S.Krishnamoorthy, having its office at No. 6 GP. Mahal, New Sidhapudur, Coimbatore 641 044

¶11

also at 24 G-1 Kala Flat, Bhujanga Roa Street, Saidapet, Chennai 15 : Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

THE RBI OMBUDSMAN Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis , 16 Rajaji Rd, Fort St.George, Chennai 01

¶14

TamilNad Mercantile Bank George town Branch, 194 Anna Pillai Street, George Town, Chennai 01 : Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus direction of a similar nature, quash the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reconsider petitioners complaint No. N202425027012358.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Hasthisha Desikan For Respondents : Ms.Keerthi Varshini T., for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, for the first respondent

¶19

WP No.11301 of 2026

¶20

Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, Standing counsel, for the second respondent

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the first respondent/ ombudsman, dated 26.9.2025.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has raised certain grievances. However, the first respondent has not considered them and has passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2025. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order suffers from perversity and non-application of mind, since none of the grievances expressed by the petitioner has been dealt with.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the proceedings before the ombudsman is only summary in Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

WP No.11301 of 2026

¶28

nature and the grievances expressed by the petitioner in its complaint have been duly taken note of, and a detailed order has been passed, after considering the materials available, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶29

The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the first respondent/ombudsman, dated 26.09.2026, primarily on three grounds, viz., (i) there is a delay on the part of the second respondent bank in refunding the GST amount; (ii) excess amount paid towards bank guarantees is required to be refunded; (iii) wrong classification of its account as ‘non-performing asset’.

¶30

As regards the first grievance that there is delay on the part of the second respondent bank in refunding the GST amount, the bank has clarified that the application itself was made belatedly by the petitioner and the ombudsman, taking note of the said fact, observed that there is no delay on the part of the second respondent bank.

¶31

With regard to the second grievance, viz., there is certain excess payment made towards the bank guarantees which needs to be refunded, the bank, upon review, found that excess charges were Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

WP No.11301 of 2026

¶34

levied, and after deducting applicable charges, refunded a sum of Rs.1,58,054/-, and the same was also informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2025. The first respondent ombudsman had taken note of this aspect that the excess amount has been refunded.

¶35

The third grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the classification of account as ‘NPA’, which according to the petitioner has been wrongly made. If the petitioner is of the view that the classification of its account has been wrongly made, the remedy lies before the competent forum and not before the ombudsman.

¶36

The first respondent ombudsman has considered all the materials, and taking note of the above aspects, has come to a conclusion that the grievances of the petitioner have been addressed and there is nothing further to be adjudicated. Since the proceedings before the ombudsman is summary in nature, this Court is of the view that the grievances of the petitioner have been addressed and it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if he is still aggrieved.

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

WP No.11301 of 2026

¶40