Axis Bank Limited vs Indian Cable Net Company Limited & Ors on 10 July, 2024
After noting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens
Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited vs. Union of India
reported at (1976) 2 SCC 981, the decision of the Madras High Court in
Fidelity Finance Ltd. vs. Banking Ombudsman reported at 2002 SCC
OnLine Mad 864 and the High Court of Kerala in the case of M. M. Kunjumon
vs. Reserve Bank of India reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 7608, the
Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that a quasi judicial body,
such as Ombudsman is reasonably expected to pass a well reasoned order and
an empty formality thereto, deserves to be weeded out. It was further observed
Page 10 of 17
that the Ombudsman is duty bound to pass reasoned order which would
eventually foster a greater transparency in the decision making process and
also inspire the confidence of the common man in efficient dispute resolution
through such bodies. The Delhi High Court after considering the facts of that
case held that though the Ombudsman was required to pass a detailed order
after dealing with the submissions made by the complainant in its detailed
complaint and also after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
respective parties, the same was not done. Under such circumstances the
impugned orders passed by the Ombudsman were set aside and the matter
was remitted back to the Ombudsman for fresh consideration in accordance
with law.