UNIQUE ENTERPRISES Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenge an order issued by the Ombudsman, under the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021.

(2.) Petitioners claim to have availed three credit facilities from the 2nd respondent (for short 'the Bank'). Alleging that there were shortcomings in the services rendered by the Bank, petitioners decided to shift their banking services to another financial institution. After ascertaining the total amount required for closure of the three credit facilities, an amount of Rs.6,58,48,202.19 was paid towards the two cash credit loan accounts, and Rs.1,22,00,000.00 towards the term loan account. According to the petitioners, despite foreclosing the entire credit facilities availed by the petitioners, the Bank failed to release their title deeds and instead started demanding foreclosure charges. Pointing out the absence of conditions entitling demand of foreclosure charges, and for closure of their credit facilities, petitioners approached the grievance cell of the Bank. Since there was no response, petitioners approached the Ombudsman under the 1st respondent. However, without considering the merits of the claim raised, a communication was issued dismissing the claim raised by the petitioners, after observing that there was no deficiency of service. Thus petitioners challenge Ext.P13 communication issued by the RBI Ombudsman.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent pointing out that there is no illegality or irregularity warranting intervention by this Court in the impugned order and further that the foreclosure charges demanded by the Bank was fully in accordance with the terms under which the credit facilities were granted. The Bank also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition relying upon the decision in Authorised Officer v. Sheela Francis Parakkal [2025 KHC OnLine 2356].