LAKSHMI NIRMAN (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (SURESH G.R.) Vs. BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KARNATAKA), ICICI BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND ITS BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner started transacting with the 2nd respondent from 2006 onwards. 2nd respondent sanctioned Rupees 1.5 Crores cash credit limit and bank guarantee of Rupees 5 Crores in favour of the petitioner and a contract was entered into on 25.02.2006. There was a mutual agreement on 02.11.2006, which resulted in the first contract being deemed to have been dissolved. Petitioner entered into a third contract for a period of one year on 12.12.2007 and a fourth contract on 01.04.2009. It entered into a contract up to 31.08.2010, on 28.07.2010, for a period of one month and three days and according to the petitioner, it expressed its intention to close the transaction and change the banker. Petitioner alleges that, without notice to it, penalty of Rs. 29,09,720.84 was slapped and hence, a complaint was made to the Banking Ombudsman on 26.11.2010. The Banking Ombudsman having rejected the complaint on 13.01.2011, on the ground that the bank has contended that Rs. 29.10 lakhs pertains to penal charges towards non compliance with the terms and conditions relating to non submission of stock statements, progress reports, site inspection, retention of loan taken by the company from the Directors etc. and not pre -closure charges as stated in the complaint and being of the opinion that the claim and counter claim involve examination of both oral and documentary evidence which is not within the ambit of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, also taking into account a mail dated 21.10.2010 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner, the complaint was rejected vide communication as at Annexure -Q. This writ petition is directed against the said order. Having heard Sri M. Narayan Bhat, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri Francis Xavier, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent and in view of the stand taken in the counter filed to this writ petition that the matter involves adjudication after detailed examination and the accounting can be done only by a Civil Court and the writ petition is not maintainable, I am of the view that the view taken by the Banking Ombudsman in the impugned communication as at Annexure -Q is justified.

(2.) IN view of the complex and disputed questions of facts involved in the matter, the petitioner shall have to approach Civil Court for relief as against respondents 2 and 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to institute a suit against respondents 2 and 3, in the matter of levy of penalty of Rs. 29,09,720.84. If a suit is instituted within a period of two months, the same shall be adjudicated and decided on its merit. Needless to observe that the petitioner having approached this Court on 13.03.2011 and prosecuted this writ petition bona fide, the period spent in prosecuting of this writ petition would enure to the benefit of the petitioner, if the suit is instituted within two months' period. All contentions of both parties are kept open. No costs.