G.Elangovan Vs The Banking Ombudsman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

G.Elangovan Vs The Banking Ombudsman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of (not quashed) with liberty to the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint in his own name before the first respondent (Banking Ombudsman); any such complaint to be disposed of within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.928 of 2026) closed. No direction was issued for return of the prepayment closure charge of Rs.13,33,701/- sought in the prayer.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection order passed by the first respondent (Banking Ombudsman), refusing to entertain the petitioner's complaint against the second respondent bank on the ground that it was lodged by an advocate and not by the customer himself, suffers from any infirmity or illegality and is liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Banking Ombudsman's rejection of the complaint on the ground that it was lodged by an advocate and not by the customer himself; consequently the impugned rejection order is not quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint in his own name before the first respondent, and any such complaint shall be disposed of within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), R. Vijayakumar, J. — W.P.(MD)No.1185 of 2026 (decided 20.01.2026): A writ petition under Article 226 sought a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Banking Ombudsman's rejection order (proceedings RBI/CMS/N202425023652910/2024-25 dated 27.03.2025), whereby the petitioner's complaint against the second respondent bank (HDFC) regarding a prepayment closure charge of Rs.13,33,701/- was rejected because it had been lodged by an advocate and not by the customer himself. Holding: the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the Ombudsman's rejection of a complaint lodged by an advocate rather than by the party personally, and therefore did not quash the order. Disposition: writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint in his own name before the Banking Ombudsman, with a direction that any such complaint be disposed of within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No refund of the prepayment closure charge was directed.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 20.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

W.P.(MD)No.1185 of 2026

and

W.M.P(MD)No.928 of 2026

G.Elangovan

...Petitioner

Vs

The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Rajaji Road, Chennai.

2. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Housing Development, Finance Company Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, No.7A, West Veli Street, Madurai.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned rejection order passed by the 1^st respondent through its proceedings in RBI/CMS/N202425023652910/2024-25 dated 27.03.2025 and to quash the same and further directing the 1^st respondent to direct the 2^nd respondent to return the prepayment closure charge for a sum of Rs.13,33,701/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and One Only) to the petitioner.

1/4

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

For Petitioner : M/s.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu For Respondents : M/s.K.R.Laxman for R1

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the first respondent wherein the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it has been lodged by an advocate and not by the party himself.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent reveals that a complaint has been lodged as against the second respondent Bank before the first respondent. The complaint has not been entertained by the first respondent primarily on the ground that it has been lodged by the advocate and not by the customer. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by first respondent.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to lodged a complaint in his name before the first respondent. In case if any such complaint is lodged, the same shall be disposed of within a period of

2/4

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

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

20.01.2026

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

To

1.The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Rajaji Road, Chennai. 2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Housing Development, Finance Company Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, No.7A, West Veli Street, Madurai.

3/4

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

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

RJR

W.P.(MD)No.1185 of 2026

20.01.2026

4/4

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