{"id":180606,"date":"2002-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002"},"modified":"2016-10-16T19:30:27","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T14:00:27","slug":"ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 25\/04\/2002  \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN           \n\nWRIT PETITION No. 7750 OF 1998    \n\n\nM\/s.Fidelity Finance Ltd.,\n16-F, Whites Road, \nII Floor, Chennai-14\nrep. by its Law Officer                         ..Petitioner\n\n                                Vs.\n\nBanking Ombudsman at Chennai    \nState of Tamil Nadu\/U.T.of Pondicherry\nand A & N Islands \nChalla Mall, 8th floor,\n11\/11-A, Sir Theagaraya Road, \nT.Nagar, Chennai-17                             ..Respondents\n\n\nFor petitioner :: Mr.T.K.Seshadri\nFor respondents:: Mr.J.Radhakrishnan \n\n\n        Writ petition filed under Art.226 of The Constitution of India praying\nfor the issue of a writ of certiorari, as stated therein.\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        The petitioner a company, registered under the Indian  Companies  Act,
\ncarrying  on  non  banking finance activities engaged in hire purchase, lease,
\nbill discounting and other financial service activities seek for the issue  of
\na  writ  of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent
\nrelating to letter No.BOS\/T.N & P.A.N\/101 8, dated 15.12.1997.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  This court ordered notice of motion on 10.6.1998.  The  respondent
\nentered appearance through Mr.J.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel, and also filed
\na counter.   The  petitioner  subsequently  filed a reply affidavit.  The writ
\npetition was taken up for hearing on 15.4.2002 with the consent of counsel for
\neither side.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The petitioner while  complaining  that  Bank  of  Madura  Limited
\nfailed  to  honour  ILC  No.3\/94-95  also  pointed  out  various omissions and
\ncommissions on the part of the Banker, and moved the respondent by lodging its
\ncomplaint dated 11.11.1997.  The complaint runs  to  60  pages  in  all  under
\nvarious heads.   It is not necessary to refer to to the details set out in the
\ncomplaint.  The petitioner moved the respondent for redressal of its grievance
\nand complained against the bankers since the respondent has  been  constituted
\nfor  redressal of such grievances and taking action on such complaints against
\nbanks.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The respondent by the impugned communication passed a final  order
\non  the  complaint  submitted  by  the  petitioner  against the Bank of Madura
\nLimited.  The impugned order reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “We refer to your complaint  dated  6.10.1997  against  the  captioned
\nbank.\n<\/p>\n
        We  took  up  the mater with the concerned bank and we note from their
\nreply that the bank was in order in returning the bill in  view  of  the  fact
\nthat  the  bill  was not drawn in accordance with the terms of LC and that the
\nnumber of LC was not mentioned in the bill.\n<\/p>\n
        Hence we regret our inability to entertain the complaint.”\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Challenging the said rejection of the complaint, the present  writ
\npetition has  been filed.  Mr.T.K.Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner
\ncontends that the order passed by the respondent merely  proceeds  as  if  the
\nreply  submitted by the Bank is in order and therefore the complaint cannot be
\nentertained or probed further.  According  to  Mr.    T.K.Seshadri,  it  is  a
\nfailure to  exercise the jurisdiction vested in the respondent.  The rejection
\nof the complaint  is  arbitrary,  without  application  of  mind  and  without
\naffording necessary opportunity.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Per contra, Mr.J.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent contends that the complaint is barred by limitation, the petitioner
\nhas no right to reopen the complaint which has already been rejected,  that  a
\ncomplaint,  if  any,  should be filed within one year from the date of alleged
\nomission or commission or breach of R.  B.I notification or circulars or other
\nstatutory provisions and that the respondent is well founded in rejecting  the
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   In  the  counter filed by the respondent it is contended that the
\nScheme does  not  envisage  any  particular  procedure  for  disposal  of  the
\ncomplaints  and  that  the  respondent is only a mediator or a conciliator and
\ntherefore the rejection  of  the  complaint  will  in  no  way  prejudice  the
\npetitioner since the petitioner has other remedies before competent forum.  It
\nis  also  contended  that  the  respondent’s decision is not conclusive in the
\ndispute between the petitioner and the  bank  and  it  is  well  open  to  the
\npetitioner to  proceed  against the bank before any other competent forum.  It
\nis contended that the respondent is not a quasi judicial authority.   But  the
\ndecision  of the respondent is based on subjective satisfaction on the matters
\nbrought before the respondent.  It is contended  that  the  rejection  of  the
\ncomplaint  is  not  arbitrary,  nor  unfair, nor it could be held that it is a
\nfailure to exercise the jurisdiction or powers  under  the  Ombudsman  Scheme.
\nAll  these  contentions  advanced by Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the
\nrespondent and as set out in the counter affidavit are raised  for  the  first
\ntime  before  this  court  and  they do not find a place ex-facie in the order
\npassed by the first respondent or from the file.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  It is well settled law that in an answer to  writ  of  certiorari,
\nthe  order  sought  to  be  impugned  has  to be sustained on the basis of the
\nreasons assigned therein or at least such reasons should find exfacie  on  the
\nface of the record.  It is not open to the respondent to invent and assign new
\nreasons in  the  counter  and  seek to defend the impugned order.  This is the
\nwell settled principle.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The impugned proceedings extracted above would show that it  is  a
\nrefusal  to  exercise  the  jurisdiction  vested  in  the  respondent  as  the
\nrespondent had failed to examine the merits of the petitioner’s complaint  and
\nafter affording  an opportunity.  The impugned proceedings is also vitiated by
\nnon application of mind, in that, the respondent had not applied its  mind  to
\nany portion  of  the  complaint or materials placed by the petitioner.  Except
\nsaying that the reply of the Banker is in order and rejecting the complaint on
\nthat sole reason, there is no examination of the complaint and the  objections
\nraised by the respondent Bank on merits.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   While exercising the power of judicial review, this court has to
\nexamine the decision making process and find out whether any reasonable person
\nwould have arrived at such  a  conclusion  or  pass  such  order  in  a  given
\nsituation.   It is essential to refer to The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 as
\nframed by the Reserve  Bank  of  India  under  Section  35.A  of  the  Banking
\nRegulation Act, 1949.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   In  terms  of  Section  35A  read with Section 56 of the Banking
\nRegulation Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank of India has framed the scheme on  15th
\nJune 1995  called  as  “The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995”.  Clause 16 of the
\nScheme provides for redressal of grievance against a  Bank  before  the  first
\nrespondent.   Clause  17 enables the first respondent to call for information.
\nClause 12 and 13 provides as to the powers of the Banking Ombudsman as well as
\nits duties which include the statutory obligation\/duty to  receive  complaints
\nrelating  to  the  provision  of  Banking services as well as to consider such
\ncomplaints and facilitate their satisfaction, or settlement by  agreement,  by
\nmaking recommendation, or award in accordance with the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Clause  13 in Chapter III, of the Scheme prescribes the ambit of
\nthe authority and power of the said authority.    The  said  clause  13  reads
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
“13.  SPECIFIC AMBIT OF AUTHORITY:\n<\/p>\n
As regards banking services, the Banking Ombudsman’s authority will include:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) ALL COMPLAINTS CONCERNING DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE SUCH AS:-\n<\/p>\n
i)      Non-payment\/inordinate  delay in the payment of collection of cheques,
\ndrafts\/bills etc.,<\/p>\n
ii)     non-acceptance, without sufficient cause, of small denomination  notes
\ntendered for any purpose, and for charging of commission in respect thereof;\n<\/p>\n
iii)    non-issue of drafts to customers and others;\n\niv)     non-adherence to prescribed working hours by branches;\n\nv)      failure to honour guarantee\/letter of credit commitments by banks;\n\nvi)     claims  in  respect  of  unauthorised  or  fraudulent withdrawals from\ndeposit accounts, etc.,\n\nvii)    Complaints pertaining to the operations in any savings, current or any\n<\/pre>\n
other account maintained with a bank, such as delays, noncredit of proceeds to
\nparties accounts, non-payment of deposit or nonobservance of the Reserve  Bank
\ndirectives, if any, applicable to rate of interest on deposits;\n<\/p>\n
viii)   complaints from exporters in India such as delays in receipt of export
\nproceeds,  handling  of  export bills, collection of bills, etc., provided the
\nsaid complaints pertain to the bank’s operations in India; and<\/p>\n
ix)     complaints from non-resident  Indians  having  accounts  in  India  in
\nrelation  to  their  remittances  from  abroad, deposits and other bankrelated
\nmatters.\n<\/p>\n
(b) COMPLAINTS CONCERNING LOANS AND ADVANCES ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE T:-\n<\/p>\n
i)      non-observance of Reserve Bank Directives on interest rates.\n<\/p>\n
ii)     delays in sanction\/non-observance  of  prescribed  time  schedule  for
\ndisposal of loan applications and<\/p>\n
iii)    non-observance  of any other directions or instructions of the Reserve
\nBank, as may be specified for this purpose, from time to time.”\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The learned counsel for the respondent contended  that  Ombudsman
\nis  not  exercising quasi judicial function or statutory power, but it is only
\nan administrative function.  This is a misconception.  The Ombudsman exercises
\nthe power in terms of  the  Scheme  which  has  been  framed  in  exercise  of
\nstatutory  power  and  has to act as per the Scheme and it is a quasi judicial
\nexercise.  This court holds that the Ombudsman is a quasi judicial  authority.
\nSince  it  has  a legal authority, it has to determine questions affecting the
\nrights of the parties, it has the duty to act judicially and assign reasons in<\/p>\n
support of its conclusion.  On the basis of the Scheme, it is clear  that  the
\nOmbudsman  has  to act quasi judicially in respect of the complaints presented
\nbefore it and act in terms of the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In Canara Bank Vs.  Upadhyaya, reported in 1998 (6) SCC  526,  it
\nhas  been  held by the Apex Court that Ombudsman is appointed by virtue of the
\nScheme framed under section 35.A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and he is
\nobliged to comply with the directions, circulars and notifications  issued  by
\nthe  Reserve Bank of India under section 35 or 21 of the Act and the Ombudsman
\nis required to issue directions to Banks based on  those  directions\/circulars
\nand ensure  their  compliance.   It has been further held by the Apex Court in
\nthe said decision that an Ombudsman appointed under the Scheme is  obliged  to
\nregulate  working  of  the  Bank and issue directions to them to carry out the
\ndirections and circulars issued by the RBI under sections 21 or 35 of the Act.
\nTherefore, it is clear that Ombudsman exercises quasi  judicial  functions  in
\nterms of  the  Statutory  Scheme.  The contentions advanced in this respect by
\nMr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Mr.T.K.Seshadri, learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  is  well
\nfounded in his contention that the complaint is not barred, nor it is belated,
\nnor it  has  already  been  decided  on  any  earlier  occasion.   The earlier
\ncomplaint filed had been returned for being presented before  the  appropriate
\nOmbudsman hearing  jurisdiction  over the area.  The Ombudsman for the area in
\nquestion was not appointed for a considerable period  and  the  complaint  was
\nkept  pending  by  the authorities and thereafter it has been forwarded to the
\nOmbudsman.  Therefore the plea of delay or latches will not arise.    However,
\nit has  been  pointed  out  that  no  such reason finds a place ex facie.  The
\nimpugned proceedings do not disclose any other reason except stating thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“We took up the mater with the concerned bank and we  note  from  their  reply
\nthat  the bank was in order in returning the bill in view of the fact that the
\nbill was not drawn in accordance with the terms of LC and that the  number  of
\nLC was not mentioned in the bill.”\n<\/p>\n
This would  mean  that the Ombudsman had failed to apply its mind.  There is a
\nfailure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Ombudsman.   The  Ombudsman
\nhas to act  in  terms of the Scheme.  No other reason has been assigned.  That
\napart, before rejecting the complaint,  the  Ombudsman  had  not  afforded  an
\nopportunity to the petitioner, nor the remarks or objections received from the
\nBank had been forwarded to the petitioner, no the petitioner had been heard at
\nall.   Admittedly,  on  receipt  of  the  remarks  or reply from the bank, the
\nOmbudsman had just stated that the bank was in order.  But it is not supported
\nby any reason.   The  petitioner’s  complaint  runs  to  more  than  50  pages
\ncontaining very  many  details.  Therefore equally, the respondent bank should
\nhave forwarded its  objection  or  remarks  running  to  number  of  pages  to
\nOmbudsman.   That reply or objection of the bank had not been forwarded to the
\npetitioner, nor the petitioner had any opportunity to know as to what  is  the
\nstand taken by the Bank in respect of the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   Rejection  of  a  complaint  without  recording reasons, without
\naffording opportunity to the  petitioner  to  substantiate  its  complaint  or
\nwithout  hearing  the petitioner after communicating the objections or remarks
\nof the bank is also fatal.    The  decision  making  process  adopted  by  the
\nOmbudsman cannot  be  sustained  at  all.  The respondent had failed to follow
\neven the minimum procedure.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In Style (Dress Land) v.  Union Territory, Chandigarh,<\/a>  (1999)  7
\nSCC 89, the Apex Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“11.   Even  the  administrative  orders  and not (sic only) quasijudicial are
\nrequired to be made in a manner  in  consonance  with  the  rules  of  natural
\njustice,  when  they  affect the rights of the citizens to the property or the
\nattributes of the property.  While exercising the powers  of  judicial  review
\nthe  court can look into the reasons given by the Government in support of its
\naction but cannot substitute its own reasons.  The Court can  strike  down  an
\nexecutive  order,  if  it  finds  the  reasons  assigned  were  irrelevant and
\nextraneous.  The courts are more concerned with  the  decision-making  process
\nthan the decision itself.”\n<\/p>\n
        18.   In  the circumstances, this court holds that the order passed by
\nthe Ombudsman is vitiated by non application of mind, and  suffer  with  error
\napparent  on  the  face of the record, besides it is a failure to exercise the
\njurisdiction vested in it.  The first respondent has  acted  in  violation  of
\nprinciples  of  natural  justice  and  it  had  not  even followed the minimum
\nrequirements in that forwarding the copy of objection or reply  received  from
\nthe  Bank and getting remarks of the petitioner or reply thereon and affording
\nopportunity of hearing or calling upon  the  petitioner  to  come  before  the
\nOmbudsman and substantiate its grievance or complaint.  Therefore the impugned
\norder is   also   violative   of  principles  of  natural  justice.    In  all
\ndetermination, even in respect  of  complaints,  where  certain  redressal  is
\nsought  for,  it  is  fundamental that principles of natural justice should be
\nfollowed and before rejecting the complaint at least an opportunity should  be
\nafforded, besides the stand or objection or version of the respondent, against
\nwhom  complaint  has  been  made  should  also be disclosed or conveyed to the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  For all  the  above  reasons,  this  court  holds  that  this  is
\neminently  a  fit case where the impugned proceeding has to be quashed and the
\nmatter should be  remitted  back  to  the  respondent  for  fresh  proceedings
\naccording to law.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  The  writ  petition  is  allowed.    The impugned proceedings are
\nquashed and the respondent is directed to restore the complaint  to  its  file
\nforward  copy  of  the  remarks  or  objections  if any received from the Bank
\nagainst whom the complaint has been made, call upon the  petitioner  to  state
\nany further remarks or substantiate its grievance or complaint with respect to
\nthe  contents  of the complaint viz., alleged omissions and commissions on the
\npart of  the  respondent  bank  by  placing  materials  and  afford  necessary
\nopportunity  of  hearing  if  so desired by either parties and thereafter pass
\norders in accordance with the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:yes
\nIndex:yes
\ngkv
\n25-04-2002 <\/p>\n
Copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
Banking Ombudsman at Chennai
\nState of Tamil Nadu\/U.T.of Pondicherry
\nand A & N Islands
\nChalla Mall, 8th floor,
\n11\/11-A, Sir Theagaraya Road,
\nT.Nagar, Chennai-17 <\/p>\n
E.PADMANABHAN.J.,
\nOrder in
\nW.P.No:  7750 of 1998 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/04\/2002 Coram THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7750 OF 1998 M\/s.Fidelity Finance Ltd., 16-F, Whites Road, II Floor, Chennai-14 rep. by its Law Officer ..Petitioner Vs. Banking Ombudsman at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-16T14:00:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T14:00:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2497,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T14:00:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-16T14:00:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T14:00:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002"},"wordCount":2497,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002","name":"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T14:00:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-fidelity-finance-ltd-vs-banking-ombudsman-at-chennai-on-25-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Fidelity Finance Ltd vs Banking Ombudsman At Chennai on 25 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}