Nazimuddin Abdul Rasheed vs The Banking Ombudsman
2024 Latest Caselaw 9737 Ker

Kerala High Court

Nazimuddin Abdul Rasheed vs The Banking Ombudsman on 4 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 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 11703 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          NAZIMUDDIN ABDUL RASHEED
          AGED 72 YEARS, S/O E.A. RASHEED, KUNNIL HEIGHTS,
          FLAT NO. 6B KUZHUVILA,
          KARIMANAL BEACH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,,
          PIN - 695 583.

          BY ADVS.
               DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT
               MEGHA
               ARYA DEVASIA
               SREERAG S.
               VINEETHA A.A.
               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 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.11703 of 2024
                                 :2:



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024

The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6,

whereby a complaint submitted by the petitioner has been rejected

for the reason that the petitioner has not approached the 2 nd

respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, he had already approached

the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent had given a reply, which

was the reason for approaching the Ombudsman.

3. The 2nd respondent appearing through the Standing

Counsel submits that the above submission of the petitioner is

correct and the petitioner had approached them.

4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 is set aside and the

matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for consideration of the

complaint on merits, after hearing both sides.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

                                              T.R RAVI
AMR                                            JUDGE





                   APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11703/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION

CERTIFICATE DATED 30.09.2022.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 21.12.2013.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03.10.2023.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.10.2023.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2023.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 17.10.2023.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) 7947 OF 2024 DATED 13.03.2024.