Shiyas Abdul Hashim vs The Banking Ombudsman
2024 Latest Caselaw 10558 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shiyas Abdul Hashim vs The Banking Ombudsman on 11 April, 2024

Author: T.R.Ravi

Bench: T.R.Ravi

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
     THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 13188 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
              SHIYAS ABDUL HASHIM
              AGED 34 YEARS, S/O ABDUL HASHIM K, RIYAS MANZIL,
              KAITHODU P.O., NILAMEL, KOLLAM,
              KERALA, PIN - 691 535.

              BY ADVS.
                   DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT
                   VINEETHA A.A.
                   SREERAG S.
                   ARYA DEVASIA
                   MEGHA
                   SREEPRIYA K.U.

RESPONDENTS:
      1       THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
              RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH
              OFFICE NO.6507, BAKERY JCT RD, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
              PIN - 695 033.

      2       THE BRANCH MANAGER
              FEDERAL BANK, BR. PONGUMOODU BHAGAVATHY PLAZA,
              MEDICAL COLLEGE, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              KERALA,
              PIN - 695 011.

              BY ADVS.
                   LAWRENCE D CUNHA
                   MATHEW BONSTANE(K/151/2015)
                   MATHEW KURIAN MATTAM(K/001009/2021)
                   JIJO ISAAC(K/1025/2002)
                   AMRUTHA S. MENON(K/001069/2024)
                   GODWIN JOSE(K/103/2008)


          THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   11.04.2024,    THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.13188 of 2024
                                   :2:




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024

Admit. Standing Counsel takes notice for the 2 nd

respondent and notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.

2. The complaint filed by the petitioner before the 1st

respondent has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has

not approached the 2nd respondent. The case of the petitioner is

that the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent.

3. Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent also submits

that the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent.

In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order is set aside.

There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the

complaint, issued with notice to the parties at the earliest, at any

rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13188/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 01.02.2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 26.03.2022.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.10.2023.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.10.2023.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.10.2023 MADE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 10.10.2023.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 7947 OF 24 DATED 13.03.2024.