The Banking Ombudsman is justified in rejecting complaints that involve complex disputed questions of fact, such as allegations of forgery, which necessitate elaborate documentary and oral evidence better suited for adjudication in appropriate civil forums under Clause 16(2)(e) of the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2026

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P15 Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are that the Petitioner claimed that the Petitioner was having three Fixed Deposits with the Respondent Bank which were issued on 06.10.2007, 16.08.2007 and 04.11.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.4,55,339/- and Rs.1,10,113/- respectively. The proprietary establishment of the Petitioner as well as the proprietary establishment of the son of the Petitioner had availed loans from the Respondent Bank. The case of the Petitioner is that, without any request from the Petitioner, the amounts standing in the credit of the Fixed Deposit accounts were transferred to the loan accounts. This is the third round of litigation before this Court. At the first instance, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.2881 of 2015 before this Court, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 Judgment directing the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman rejected the complaint as per the Order dated 19.12.2022 holding that the complaint is not maintainable on account of the pendency of the W.P.(C) No.2881 of 2015. The said Order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2769 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P10 Judgment setting aside the said Order dated 19.12.2022 holding that as on the date of the said Order of the Banking Ombudsman, W.P.(C) No.2881 of 2015 was not pending before this Court. The Banking Ombudsman was further directed to reconsider the matter on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Thereafter, the Ombudsman passed Ext.P15 Order finding that the complaint is not maintainable in view of Clause 16(2)(a) of the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is opposed by the Respondent Bank by filing Counter Affidavit.

3. I heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Banking Ombudsman and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that before passing Ext.P15 Order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner as directed in Ext.P10 judgment by this Court. The Ombudsman illegally entered a finding that the contention of the Petitioner is that the loan application was forged, when the document to prove the request of the Petitioner to transfer the FD amounts to the loan account was not produced before the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman had no occasion to enter such findings.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the Petitioner had only two Fixed Deposits and the third Fixed Deposit referred to is the renewal of the first Fixed Deposit referred in the Writ Petition. The loans were closed as per the request of the Petitioner and the balance amounts were transferred to the personal account of the Petitioner and the account of the establishment of the Petitioner on closure of the loan. The Petitioner received the title documents in the year 2008 itself. The complaint filed in 2013 is only by way of experiment.

6. The learned Counsel for Banking Ombudsman invited my attention to Clause 16(2)(e) of the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, which provides that when a complaint requires con