The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enforce compliance with the Banking Ombudsman award and the duty of Canara Bank to refer the matter to the Internal Ombudsman for implementation and amicable settlement.

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

Contending inter alia that there is willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.A.No.1698 of 2015 dated 02.02.2016, Contempt Petition No.310 of 2017, has been filed. On 12.06.2017, this Court passed the following orders.

"Contending inter alia that order made in W.A.No.1698 of 2015 dated 02.02.2016 has not been implemented in letter and spirit, writ petitioner, S.Mahendran, the 3rd respondent in W.A.No.1698 of 2015, has filed the instant contempt petition.

2. Going through the averments to contempt petition viz., Cont.P.No.310 of 2017 and the supporting documents, we permit Mr.S.Ramesh, Kumar, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners to serve the entire cause papers on Mr.K.Elango, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Srivilliputtur Branch, Virudhunagar District, respondent herein to revert on the averments and documents.

3. We make it clear that notice permitted to be served on the respondent is not a statutory notice issued by this Court.

4. Post on 03.07.2017"

2. Thereafter on 06.07.2017, this Court, passed the following order:

"3. Arguments were also advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both parties that notice has to be issued to Reserve Bank of India for appropriate order.

4. On this day, a revised calculation has been made by the petitioner that as on 31.03.2016, a sum of Rs.21,62,178/- is due and payable on the fixed deposit.

5. Though, Mr.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the bank reiterated the submissions stated supra, we direct Canara Bank, Srivilliputtur Branch, Virudhunagar District, the respondent herein to examine the revised calculation submitted to this Court. Post on 24.07.2017."

3. On 24.07.2017, this Court passed the following order:

"3. Mr.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the bank submitted that on the facts and circumstances of this case, if Reserve Bank of India, Chennai is directed to examine as to how an award of the Banking Ombudsman dated 31.08.2000 has to be interpreted, it would pave way, in settling disputes of similar nature.

4. Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is also agreeable to the said submission.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, we deem it fit to order notice to the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, through its competent authority. Accordingly, issue notice to the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, through Court and privately, returnable in two weeks.

6. Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner shall serve entire cause papers including the affidavit, revised calculation and the counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Thanjavur to Reserve Bank of India, Chennai.

7. Competent Authority, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai shall file a detailed counter affidavit, setting out the details as to how an award of the Banking Ombudsman dated 31.08.2000, has to be interpreted, on the facts and circumstances of this case.

8. Post after two weeks."

4. Pursuant to the direction, Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, has filed a counter affidavit, stating as follows:

"3. It is respectfully submitted on receipt of the complaint, the office of the Banking Ombudsman had sought comments from Canara Bank vide letter dated 31.3.1999. On 7.6.1999, Canara Bank replied stating that the loans were granted after due execution of documents by the complainant, the bank has got authority to renew deposits from time to time, it was for the borrower to clear the loan and that the bank has gone by the terms and conditions of the letter of pledge.

4. It is submitted that after receipt of the above reply on 9.6.1999, the office of the Ombudsman wrote to Canara bank on 17.7.1999 inter alia stating that the bank should have intimated the maturity of deposits and the bank should have kept the depositor / loanee informed about the interest debited to his account giving full details of the amount and rate charged from time to time. Canara Bank's attention was als