Schindra Kumar Das v. Banking Ombudsman,Sbi,Bbsr
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge held that the Banking Ombudsman violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the petitioner's complaint regarding a bank loan without affording him an opportunity to be heard. The judgment directs the Banking Ombudsman to rehear the matter de novo.
What did the court decide?
Order quashed and comptained remitted to Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar for inquiry de novo and disposal within eight weeks after hearing both parties.
What the court decided
W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2018
02. 23.04.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
- The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained a loan of Rs.70,000/- from the State Bank of India, with a term that he would carry on business and after further loan being granted, the said Rs.70,000/- would be recovered. But unfortunately no further loan was granted but he was asked to repay the aforesaid loan of Rs.70,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that showing the deficiency service of the bank, he has approached the learned Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar who without hearing the petitioner disposed of the complaint stating that it has no merit. Since the natural of justice of the petitioner has been violated, he needs for direction from the Court to the learned Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.
- Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order vide Annexure-7 is as follows:-
“By e-mail/Speed post
BO(BHU) No.3753/22.02.000/2017-18
Shri Sachindra Kumar Das February 19, 2018 At-Aladia, PO-Ranasahi Balasore Odisha-756002 Sir,
Disposal of your complaint no.1507/2017-18 against Sate Bank of India.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Banking Ombudsman violated the principles of natural justice by disposing of the petitioner's complaint without affording him an opportunity of being heard.
Whether the Banking Ombudsman stayed within jurisdiction and followed due process while deciding the complaint under clause 13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sachindra Kumar Das
- respondent
State Bank of India
Coram
Dr. D.P. Choudhury
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court