Writ petitions seeking relief against auction notices by banks must comply with procedural prerequisites before approaching the Ombudsman.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026

1. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the Respondent Bank to auction the gold pledged by the Petitioners and their daughter. Petitioner No.1 had approached this Court earlier by filing a Writ Petition with the same reliefs which culminated in the Ext.P11 judgment of this Court, by which this Court found that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as against the Respondent Bank, which is a private Bank. While dismissing the said Writ Petition, this Court had observed that the Petitioner is free to agitate his contentions before the appropriate forums, including the Civil Court and the Banking Ombudsman. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed Complaints before the Banking Ombudsman, and the same were rejected by Exts.P15 and P15(a), stating that the complaints were filed without waiting for 30 days after submitting the complaint to the Regulating Entity as required.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri. Thomas Abraham, is that the Petitioners had submitted a Complaint before the Bank on 07.01.2026, and hence the complaint before the Ombudsman could be filed only after 07.02.2026. If the Bank had rejected the complaint, the Petitioners could have maintained the complaints before the Banking Ombudsman even before the expiry of 30 days and pressed for orders. The Bank is purposefully delaying the disposal of the complaint in order to defeat the legitimate right of the Petitioners to approach the Banking Ombudsman. Now the Bank is hastily proceeding to auction the pledged gold ornaments. In such case, Complaints before the Banking Ombudsman will become infructuous and the Petitioners will be put to great prejudice and irreparable injury as gold worth nearly Rs.3 Crores would be sold for a debt of around Rs.1 Crore. Hence, the learned Counsel prayed for setting aside Exts.P13 and P13(a) Auction Notices in order to enable the Petitioners to seek their remedy before the Banking Ombudsman.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank, Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, strongly objected to the prayers in Writ Petition, contending that the Petitioners have no right to file this Writ Petition in light of the Ext.P11 judgment in the earlier Writ Petition for the same reliefs. Even though this Court granted an interim order dated 28.01.2026 in this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have not complied with the condition therein by making payment of Rs.25 Lakh on 29.01.2026. The Bank adjourned the auction to the next day in order to enable the Petitioners to comply with the Interim Order.

4. This Court passed an order dated 28.01.2026 staying the proceedings as per Exts.P13 and P13(a) to auction gold ornaments on the condition that the Petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- before the time of auction proposed as per Exts.P13 and P13(a) in spite of the strong objection from the part of the Respondent Bank. When this matter was taken today, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the authorized representatives of the Petitioners approached the Bank at 10 A.M. on 29.01.2026 and sought time till 2 P.M. to pay the amount, and the same is strongly disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank is that even though the payment had to be made at 10 A.M. itself on 29.01.2026, the Bank waited for the entire day for the Petitioners to make payment as per the interim order by adjourning the auction sale to today. The fact remains that the gold was not sold on that day and the Petitioners have not paid Rs.25,00,000/- on 29.01.2026. If the Petitioners were ready to pay the payment as per the Interim Order and the Bank was refusing to accept the same, the Petitioners could have mentioned the matter