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.
