- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30839 WP No. 22868 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 22868 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DEEPA SRIVASTAVA W/O MAYANK SRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 235 FERNS CITY, OPPOSITE TOTAL MALL DODDANEKUNDI MARATHAHALLI COLONY BANGALORE - 560 037. 2. ABHINAV SRIVASTAVA S/O MAYANK SRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 235, FERNS CITY OPPOSITE TOTAL MALL DODDANEKUNDI MARATHAHALLI COLONY BANGALORE - 560 037. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHISH KRUPAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KARNATAKA) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 10/3/8, 2ND FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30839 WP No. 22868 of 2022 2. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., NO.22 KOTAK HOUSE M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 3. AXIS BANK LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT "TRISHUL", 3RD FLOOR OPPOSITE SAMARTHESWAR TEMPLE NEAR LAW GARDEN ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD-380 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY R-1 -SERVED SRI. HARISH SRIVATSA L., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. V.SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 DATED 19.10.2022 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E RESPECTIVELY TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30839 WP No. 22868 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioners - mother and son admittedly had borrowed loan No.1 against the security of the subject property. Petitioner No.2 and his wife had apparently borrowed loan No.2 from the very same financial institution against different property. 2. It is contended that the petitioners herein have paid and cleared loan No.1 and the said loan has been paid to respondent No.3 Axis bank through respondent No.2 and having cleared the loan they had approached respondent No.2- bank for release of title deeds. It is at this juncture the respondent No.2-bank has invoked clause 2.11 and 3.3 of the Loan Agreement contending that petitioners herein are not entitled to release of documents as the same have been retained for the loan which was borrowed by petitioner No.2 along with his wife. This resulted in petitioners approaching Ombudsman, who on hearing the parties held there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent-bank and accordingly rejected their complaint. An endorsement in this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30839 WP No. 22868 of 2022 regard has been issued as per Annexure-E contending that since complaint has been closed under clause 16(2)(a) of the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, which is a non-appealable order, petitioners are before this Court. 3. Heard and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though Annexure-E, a communication/endorsement issued with reference to the complaint filed by the petitioners herein indicate that there is no dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-bank in not releasing the property papers. Said conclusion has been arrived by the Ombudsman without hearing the petitioner or furnishing any material purportedly submitted by respondent No.2-bank. Hence he submits an opportunity be granted to petitioners to appear before the Ombudsman and to present their case appropriately. 5. Perusal of the endorsement at Annexure-E indicate that the same has been passed merely on the basis of the reply of the bank to the complaint filed by the petitioners. It does not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30839 WP No. 22868 of 2022 reveal any hearing having been taken place before the Ombudsman. 6. The Reserve Bank -Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 contemplates the procedure for filing of a complaint, initial scrutiny of the complaint, power to call for information, resolution of complaints, and award to be passed by the Ombudsman. 7. It also requires the Ombudsman to have the versions/reply or documents as the case may be furnished by the opposite party to be supplied and matter be heard in compliance to principles of natural justice. Nothing of this sort appears to have taken place. 8. In that view the matter, matter is remitted to the respondent No.1 who shall rehear the complaint filed by the petitioners and after affording sufficient opportunity including supplying them the material, version if any of the respondent- bank, pass appropriate orders. Such order shall be passed within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy this order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30839 WP No. 22868 of 2022 9. Needless to state the petitioners are also at liberty to avail such civil remedy before the competent Court of law if so desired and advised. Petition disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51