IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT R.K.SHRIVASTAVA VERSUS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Kishore Shrivastava – Senior Advocate with Shri Raman Choubey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Maindiretta – Advocate for respondent No.4.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESERVED ON : 04.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Present petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-

“(i) Call for the entire records in possession of the respondents pertaining to the complaint case no. 112/2003-2004 for its kind perusal;

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned communication/letter dated 6.5.2003 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent bank.

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.1.2005 passed by the reviewing authority under clause

18(1) of the scheme;

(iv) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.4.2005 (Annex. P/15) passed in review by the Banking Ombudsman.

(v) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to compensate the petitioner to the value of cheques alongwith the interest at the FDR rate from the date of dishonour of the cheques i.e. 17.4.2003 till the date of payment; (vi) Any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted;

(vii) “Cost of the petition.”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner submitted two cheques worth one lac each for collection, through his banker UCO Bank Wright Town, Jabalpur, which were not honoured by the respondent Bank on the ground “Title of account modified” vide its communication dated 17-4-2003 Annexure-P/18. Neither any other faults were found with the two cheques nor it was dishonoured for want of funds. As required by clause 13(3)(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2002 (in short Scheme), before making a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman under clause 12 of the Scheme, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.04.2003 (Annexure- P/1). The respondent Bank vide its communication dated 6-5-2003 (Annexure- P/2) could not agree with the representation, hence the petitioner was compelled to file a complaint under clause 12 of the Scheme, to the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman respondent No.3 after considering the contentions of both the parties, and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings held under clause 15 of the Scheme, advised the respondent Bank (before passing any award under clause 16 of the Scheme) to compensate the Petitioner to the extent of the value of the cheques and also to pay interest at FDR rate from the date of dishonour, till date of payment (Annexure-P/8).

3. The respondent No.1 & 2 inter alia, entertained review petition (Annexure-P/10) against advise given by Ombudsman (Annexure-P/8) filed by the Respondent Bank and remanded the matter vide impugned order dated 19-1-2005 without supplying any copy of the impugned order to the petitioner, it was informed vide Annexure-P/14 that the Review Authority has passed order on 19-1-2005 under clause 18(1) of the Scheme, for review of award by the Ombudsman. Thereafter, the Ombudsman, in his turn, vide order dated 15-4-2005, rejected the petitioner’s claim/complaint holding that ‘the complaint is without sufficient cause’ (Annexure-P/16).

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is challenged mainly on four grounds viz (i) The application dated 03.08.2004 is barred by limitation; (ii) No opportunity of hearing was given to him; (iii) The Bank was at liability to compensate the petitioner and (iv) The Banking Ombudsman has wrongly dismissed the complaint holding that