Sriram Engineering company Vs RBI Ombudsman (Madras High Court)
Petition on GST Refund, Bank Charges, and NPA Classification Dismissed: Madras HC Holds Ombudsman’s Findings Adequately Addressed Grievances
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the first respondent/Ombudsman concerning grievances raised by the petitioner, Sriram Engineering company. The impugned Ombudsman order is referred to as dated 26.9.2025 in the opening paragraph, while paragraph 4 refers to it as dated 26.09.2026. The petitioner contended that the Ombudsman had failed to consider its grievances and that the order suffered from perversity and non-application of mind.
The first respondent submitted that Ombudsman proceedings are summary in nature and that the grievances had been considered based on the available materials. The petitioner raised three principal grievances: alleged delay by the second respondent bank in refunding the GST amount, non-refund of excess amounts paid towards bank guarantees, and alleged wrongful classification of its account as a non-performing asset (NPA). Regarding the GST refund, the bank clarified that the petitioner had itself made the application belatedly, and the Ombudsman found that there was no delay attributable to the bank. Regarding excess bank guarantee charges, the bank, upon review, found that excess charges had been levied and, after deducting applicable charges, refunded Rs.1,58,054/- to the petitioner, as communicated by letter dated 30.07.2025.
The Ombudsman took note of the refund. On the NPA classification grievance, the Court observed that if the petitioner considered the classification incorrect, the remedy lay before the competent forum and not before the Ombudsman. The Court found that the Ombudsman had considered the relevant materials and concluded that the petitioner’s grievances had been addressed and that nothing further remained to be adjudicated. Considering the summary nature of Ombudsman proceedings, the Court held that the grievances had been addressed and observed that the petitioner could approach the appropriate forum if still aggrieved. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the first respondent/ ombudsman, dated 26.9.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has raised certain grievances. However, the first respondent has not considered them and has passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2025. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order suffers from perversity and non-application of mind, since none of the grievances expressed by the petitioner has been dealt with.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the proceedings before the ombudsman is only summary inm nature and the grievances expressed by the petitioner in its complaint have been duly taken note of, and a detailed order has been passed, after considering the materials available, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the first respondent/ombudsman, dated 26.09.2026, primarily on three grounds, viz., (i) there is a delay on the part of the second respondent bank in refunding the GST amount; (ii) excess amount paid towards bank guarantees is required to be refunded; (iii) wrong classification of its account as ‘non-performing asset’.
5. As regards the first grievance that there is delay on the part of the second respondent bank in refunding the GST amount, the bank has clarified that the application itself was made belatedly by the petitioner and the ombudsman, taking note of the said fact, observed that there is no delay on the part of the second respondent bank.
6. With regard to the second grievance, viz., there is certain excess payment made towards the bank guarantees which needs to be refunded, the bank, upon review, found that excess charges were levied, and after deducting applicable charges, refunded a sum of Rs.1,58,054/-, and the same was also informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2025. The first respondent ombudsman had taken note of this aspect that the excess amount has been refunded.
7. The third grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the classification of account as ‘NPA’, which according to the petitioner has been wrongly made. If the petitioner is of the view that the classification of its account has been wrongly made, the remedy lies before the competent forum and not before the ombudsman.
8. The first respondent ombudsman has considered all the materials, and taking note of the above aspects, has come to a conclusion that the grievances of the petitioner have been addressed and there is nothing further to be adjudicated. Since the proceedings before the ombudsman is summary in nature, this Court is of the view that the grievances of the petitioner have been addressed and it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if he is still aggrieved.
9. In view of the above, we find no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
