Case Law Details
GSCO Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court considered a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to enquire into whether the RBI fair practice code had been complied with. The petitioners had obtained a loan for purchasing 12 dumpers, paid part of the loan amount, and, after failing to repay the entire loan, the respondent financial company repossessed the vehicles at the petitioners’ request and auctioned them. The petitioners alleged that the vehicles were sold below their actual value and that the financial company was still claiming further amounts from them.
They had submitted a representation to the RBI authorities, including the Centralized Receipt and Processing Centre, on 7 August 2025, but alleged that it had not been considered. RBI submitted that the complaint had been filed through the petitioners’ advocate and not in the format prescribed under the RBI scheme. It stated that if the petitioners filed a complaint in accordance with the scheme, either directly or through an authorised representative instead of the advocate, the RBI Ombudsman would consider it in accordance with law. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a proper online representation under the RBI scheme and directed the RBI Ombudsman to consider it and pass an appropriate order within six weeks of receipt.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to enquire and determined whether the fair practice code under the guideline issued by the Reserve Bank of India has been complied with or not.
2. The petitioners have obtained loan for purchase of 12 numbers of dumpers for the purpose of its business. The petitioners have paid some loan amounts but were not paid the total loan amounts. Accordingly, the respondent no. 6, the financial company has taken back all the vehicles as per the request of the petitioner and sold the said vehicles on auction. But the respondent no. 6 has sold the vehicles in lower rate other than the actual rate of the vehicle and now the respondent no. 6 is claiming further amount from the petitioners.
3. The petitioners being aggrieved with the said action of the respondent no. 6 have made a representation to the authorities including Centralized Receipt and Processing Centre, RBI on August 7, 2025 but the said representation has not been considered. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed the present writ application.
4. Learned counsel for the RBI submits that on receipt of the complaint submitted by the petitioners, it is found that the complaint has been filed by the learned advocate of the petitioner and it is not in format of the scheme of the RBI and accordingly, he submits that if the petitioner will file the complaint in accordance with law under the scheme of the RBI either directly by the petitioner or through an authorized representative instead of the learned advocate, the Ombudsman RBI shall consider the representation if any made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. The writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to make a proper representation to the RBI under the scheme of the RBI through Online and if any, representation is made by the petitioners to the RBI, the Ombudsman RBI shall consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
6. WPA 21958 of 2025 is disposed of.
7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.
Author Bio
