2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
JAMES JOSEPH FERNANDEZ – Appellant
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32143 OF 2024

The Ombudsman must provide a reasoned decision as per legal obligations when dismissing complaints.

Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'The Banking Ombudsman failed to provide a reasoned order as required by law, leading to the challenge of the finding under scrutiny.', 'facts_of_the_case': 'The Petitioner challenged the Ombudsman’s decision rejecting the complaint without thorough consideration of the merits, resulting in the court’s intervention.', 'findings_of_court': 'The order was not supported by adequate reasoning, warranting it be set aside for reevaluation by the Ombudsman.', 'issues': "Was the Ombudsman's decision sufficiently reasoned?", 'ratio_decidendi': 'The court held that the Ombudsman’s finding lacked justification, indicating a failure in fulfilling service obligations.', 'result': 'Accordingly, the Ext.P6 Order is set aside and the Ombudsman is directed to reconsider the matter on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.'}