IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Banking Ombudsman to provide reasons for decisions, afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties, and act in a manner advancing the objects of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. The judgment emphasizes the need for procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

1. The sole proprietress of Cochin Frozen Foods filed this writ petition on behalf of the proprietorship concern challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the 1st respondent Ombudsman. During the pendency of the writ petition she expired and her husband got substituted as supplemental petitioner to represent the proprietorship concern.

2. The contentions raised in the writ petition are as follows:

The Cochin Frozen Foods is engaged in the business of exporting marine products to various foreign countries. The sole proprietress of Cochin Frozen Foods is a Director of the additional 4th respondent company, Cochin Frozen Food Exports Private Limited (hereafter referred as “company”). The petitioner, Cochin Frozen Foods used to have business with an Iranian company. An amount of Rs. 1,05,20,850/- was transferred to the UCO Bank to be paid to the petitioner on account a of shipment of frozen yellow fin tuna fish to the Iranian company. The petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent, UCO Bank, Treasury Branch, Mumbai through a letter addressed to the company with the enclosure addressed to the petitioner firm that the payment was received by them. Communication by the UCO Bank is produced as Ext.P1. When the payment due to the petitioner was not effected by the Bank, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, MG Road, Ernakulam. Later, the banker of the petitioner, the Federal Bank also issued a communication to the UCO Bank for release of payment. The Federal Bank was informed by the UCO Bank that the Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd., the additional 4th respondent had received advance remittance from an Iranian company against their export and it has not refunded Rs. 8,27,836/- being the excess advance payment/balance left over. Until and unless the matter is settled, UCO Bank cannot release the amount received from the Iranian Commercial Bank to the petitioner. According to the additional 4th respondent company, the said dealing was settled much earlier. However on account of the compulsion to get the huge amount released, the petitioner was forced to remit an amount of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the company’s account with UCO Bank, M.G Road Branch Ernakulam under advice to its Mumbai Treasury Branch and only thereafter the amount of Rs. 1,05,20,850/- was released to the petitioner. Petitioner’s case is that the petitioner and the 4th respondent company are two different legal entities and the petitioner has no account maintained with the UCO Bank. Hence the withholding of the amount due to the petitioner alleging that amounts were due from the company was unfair and illegal. The petitioner suffered loss due to the delay in releasing the payment and also on account of remittance of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the account of the company, under coercion.

3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint to the Banking Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram. The Banking Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram, vide Ext P4, suggested the petitioner to prefer complaint to the Banking Ombudsman within whose jurisdiction, branch or office of the bank against which the complaint is filed is situated. Ext.P3 complaint was forwarded to the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Mumbai by the Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter the petitioner approached the 1st respondent Ombudsman. Ext.P5 is the complaint filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent.

4. The 1st respondent, forwarded Ext.P5 to the UCO Bank, obtained their response and thenceforth closed the complaint. Ext.P8 is the communication issued by the 1st respondent Ombudsman to the petitioner conveying the decision. The said decision of the Ombudsman is under challenge in this writ petition as stated at the outset.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition reveals a clear case of misappropriation by a banking institution, deficiency in service, delay in making payment causing huge loss and agony, unfair banking practice etc. The Banking Ombudsman howeve