Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Sandip Chatterjee vs The Banking Ombudsman & Anr on 9 December, 2014

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                                 ORDER SHEET
                                WP 1122 of 2014
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE




                              SANDIP CHATTERJEE

                                      Versus

                      THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN & ANR.


  BEFORE:

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

  Date : 9th December, 2014.


                                                          Ms.M.Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                             Mr.A.Chaubey, Adv.
                                                              ..for the petitioner.


     The Court: The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, its complaint before

the Banking Ombudsman has been disposed of by an unreasoned order and

without affording any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

      The writ petitioner claims that, his account with the respondent no.2 was

dealt with without his consent. He complained to the Banking Ombudsman. His complaint resulted in a communication of the Banking Ombudsman by an electronic mail dated June 30, 2014 which is at page no.59 of the writ petition.

In spite of two notices being served upon the respondents, none appears for the respondents even in the second call.

2

I have perused impugned order of the Banking Ombudsman. I have not able to understand the meaning of the order impugned, let alone fathom of the reason of the order.

The writ petitioner has submitted that, he was not heard prior to the Banking Ombudsman passing the impugned order. The impugned order is without any reason. The impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside.

The respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the complaint of the writ petitioner dated 21st April, 2014 as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The respondent no.1 will afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner prior to disposing of the complaint. The respondent no.1 will pass a reasoned order and will communicate the same to the writ petitioner.

With the aforesaid directions, WP No.1122 of 2014 is disposed of. No order as to costs.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) dg2