2026:BHC-OS:369-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 697 OF 2021 Niraj Shyam Chaudhary and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.

Banking Ombudsman Office and Ors. ...Respondents ----

Mr Sarosh Bharucha a/w Mr R A Shah and Mr Mohammed Lokhandwala i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., for the Petitioners.

----

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

MAMTA AMAR KALE DM D19 i a Ag :t1 Mi e t 0: a T :2 l 5 A 0 y 4 2 A s +6 iMg .00 nA 51 e 3 R . d 00 K 8 bAyLE DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2026 P.C.

1. Being aggrieved by the two separate orders passed by the Banking Ombudsman Office, on the distinct complaints filed by the petitioners, under the provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, since the complaints were not entertained on the ground that no deficiency in banking service was found, the petitioners have approached this Court raising a challenge to the said orders.

2. Heard Mr Sarosh Bharucha, the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Despite service of notice to respondent No.1 including the Banking Ombudsman Office as well as Central Bank of India, Byculla Branch and Basti Branch, as well as the private Respondent, the brother of the petitioners Chandrakant Ramlal Chaudhary, there is no appearance before us today, despite time being sought to file an affidavit-in-reply in the past.

3. On hearing Mr Sarosh Bharucha, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we have perused the impugned orders in the backdrop of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, formulated by the Reserve Bank of India.

The scheme introduced for resolution of complaints relating to certain services rendered by the bank intended to have expeditious satisfaction or settlement of such complaints.

The Ombudsman appointed under Clause 4 of the Scheme is empowered to entertain the complaint preferred on any ground alleging deficiency in the banking including internet banking and other services, specifically set out in Clause 8(1).

The exhaustive list of the deficiency extend to failure to provide or delay in providing a banking facility as well as refusal to close or delay in closing the accounts and also non- adherence to the fair practices adopted by the Bank and non followance of Reserve Bank guidelines etc.

The residuary clause(u) covers “any other matter relating to the violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank in relation to banking or other services.”

4. It is in the light of aforesaid scheme, the petitioners have preferred two complaints to the Ombudsman, the first requesting for de-freezing of the accounts and the other being preferred, since their current account in the Byculla Branch, was put on hold at the request of Basti Branch, Uttar Pradesh of the Central Bank of India.

5. The complaints being placed on record at Exh.’O’, is perused by us and we have noted that the genesis of the complaint lies in some discord between the petitioners and respondent No.4, as the father of the petitioners and respondent No.4 being owners of the property in Purani Basti, Uttar Pradesh, leased out the premises to Central Bank of India, Basti Branch and the regular rent being deposited in their joint bank account directly.

Ramlal Chaudhary having been dead on 10 July 2011, the petitioner No.1, Niraj Chaudhary was appointed as a nominee of the said account. After following the due procedure and after filing the nominee form, he requested the Bank to issue a pay order for the said amount lying in the said bank account in the sum of Rs.25,60,499/- and the pay order was issued by the Bank without any reservation. However, in the meantime, there was a claim by respondent No.4 claiming himself to be heir of Ramlal Chaudhary and it is evidently clear that upon some complaint being made by him on the basis of his share in the said amount, in regards to which the pay order was issued in favour of the petitioners by the Bank at Basti and which amount he deposited in Byculla Branch and also invested in two fixed