[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ranganadhan vs Versus Reserve Bank Of India on 27 February, 2026
WA No.462/2026
1
2026:KER:17421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 462 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2026 IN WP(C) NO.3395 OF
2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 RANGANADHAN V S
AGED 65 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MELKER FINANCE & LEASING PVT.
LTD., RESIDING AT VALATH HOUSE, KOORKANCHERRY P.O,
THRISSUR NOW UNDER IMPRISONMENT IN DISTRICT JAIL,
VIYOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680007
2 VASANTHY RANGANATHAN
AGED 63 YEARS
DIRECTOR, MELKER FINANCE & LEASING PVT. LTD.,
RESIDING AT VALATH HOUSE, KOORKANCHERRY P.O,
THRISSUR NOW UNDER IMPRISONMENT IN VANITHA JAIL,
VIYOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680007
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SMT.SWATHY A.P.
SMT.FOUSIYA R
SMT.THARA ELIZABETH THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, POST
BOX NO.3065, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
WA No.462/2026
2
2026:KER:17421
MANAGER, PIN - 682018
2 DHANLAXMI BANK LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 680002
3 CHIEF MANAGER
DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, 1ST
FLOOR, DHANALAKSHMY BUILDING, NAICKANAL, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680001
4 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
DHANLAXMI BANK LTD., THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH,
DHANLAKSHMI BUILDING, NAICKANAL, THRISSUR, PIN -
680001
5 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CAMPUS, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
6 SHRIRAM AUTOMALL INDIA LIMITED ( SOUGHT TO BE
IMPLEADED )
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEAD
OFFICE, 7TH FLOOR, BEST BUSINESS PARK, NETAJI
SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, DELHI ( SOUGHT TO BE
IMPLEADED )
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2026,
THE COURT ON 27.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.462/2026
3
2026:KER:17421
JUDGMENT
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,J
The present intra-court Appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 30.01.2026
passed in WP(C) No.3395/2026 by this Court, whereby the Writ
Petition has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners have filed the Writ Petition
praying for the following reliefs:
"i. call for the records leading to Exhibits P5 to P8, P13
and P13(a), all issued by the respondent bank as well as Exhibits
P15 and P15(a) documents declining interference in the
complaints preferred by the petitioners before the Banking
Ombudsman and all steps taken pursuant thereto and quash the
same by issuing a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or
direction;
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to
withdraw all steps taken to auction the gold ornaments
belonging to the petitioners and all other coercive steps taken
against them without rendering the petitioner an opportunity
to take essential steps for settling the loan accounts with the
bank after getting released from their unjustified incarceration:
iii. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to
reconsider Exhibit P14 series of complaints and take a decision
on the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners or through their authorized representative
2026:KER:17421
within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iv. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction restraining the 2 nd respondent bank
authorities from proceeding with any coercive steps, including
auctioning of the gold ornaments pledged, pursuant to Exhibits
P5 to P8 and P13 series of notices, in respect of the gold loans
availed by the petitioner and his wife, till the final adjudication
on Exhibit P14 series of complaint on merits;
v. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to take
up Exhibit P10 representation submitted by the petitioner and
pass orders on the same after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner through an authorized representative;
vi. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to
mulct the petitioners against the loans availed by other entity
without independently proceeding against the principal
borrower;
vii. direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to furnish all the
detailed accounts of the various loans mentioned in Exhibit P5
communication to the petitioner herein forthwith;
viii. Grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit
and proper for this Hon'ble Court to award the costs of this Writ
Petition;"
The Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby,
the appellants herein have filed the present Writ Appeal.
3. The Learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the 5th respondent banking Ombudsman has rejected his
complaint vide Ext.P15 and P15(a) stating that the complaints were
2026:KER:17421
filed without waiting for 30 days after submitting the compliant to
the regulating entity (Dhanalaxmi Bank) as required, therefore, the
learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the Writ Petition
and directed the Banking Ombudsman, ie, the 5th respondent to re-
consider the complaints and to take a decision on the same on
merits after affording an opportunity of hearing within a time
frame. Instead of passing such a direction, the Writ Petition has
been dismissed. Therefore, the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the
respondents 2 to 4 at the threshold, pointed out that the appellants
herein had already approached this Court earlier by filing Writ
Petition No.863/2026 praying for similar reliefs as prayed for in the
impugned Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.863/2026 vide the judgment dated 14.01.2026 dismissed the Writ
Petition as not maintainable against a Private Bank, however, it
granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate all his contentions
before the appropriate forums, including a Civil Court and the
2026:KER:17421
Banking Ombudsman. In view of the aforesaid, the second Writ
Petition praying for the similar reliefs is not maintainable and the
principles of res judicata would apply to the facts of this case. In
view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable.
The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. As
a consequence, the present Writ Appeal may also be dismissed.
Therefore, the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. It is an admitted position that a Writ Petition
against the Private Bank is not maintainable. Moreover, as per the
rejection orders Ext.P15 and P15(a) issued by the Banking
Ombudsman, the 5th respondent, a complaint before the
Ombudsman can only be entertained only in the event of non-
receipt of reply within 30 days from the lodgement of the
complaint, from the Regulated Entity or if the complaint is rejected
wholly or partially by the regulated entity, the complaint can be
2026:KER:17421
registered with the Ombudsman. The procedure has been laid down
to file the complaint before the Ombudsman. Therefore, the 5 th
respondent was right in rejecting the complaint of the appellants.
The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition has
already granted liberty to the appellants to re-submit the
complaints before the Banking Ombudsman after the completion of
30 days from the date of complaint submitted to the Bank leaving
open all the contentions. In view of the aforesaid, we are not
inclined to entertain the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal being bereft
of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters
stand closed.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Nsd
