Limited Banking Ombudsman jurisdiction ends when the same dispute goes before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 confers limited jurisdiction over loan-related complaints, and that jurisdiction does not continue once the same subject-matter is taken before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Clause 16(3)(d) bars continuation where the dispute is pending before another competent forum, so the Ombudsman cannot proceed further after the Tribunal is invoked. The Scheme also confines loan complaints under clause 13(b) to breaches of Reserve Bank directives on matters such as interest, sanction delay, and prescribed time limits. Directions to disburse further loan amounts, alter repayment terms, fix financing ratios, or extend moratorium go beyond that limited authority and are not sustainable absent a breached RBI directive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Banking Ombudsman retained jurisdiction after the bank initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the same subject-matter; (ii) whether the reliefs granted by the Banking Ombudsman in relation to the loan, repayment schedule, moratorium, and further disbursement fell within the ambit of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995.

Issue (i): Whether the Banking Ombudsman retained jurisdiction after the bank initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the same subject-matter.

Analysis: Clause 16(3)(d) of the Scheme bars a complaint where the same subject-matter is pending before a court, tribunal, arbitrator, or other forum. The complaint was validly presented before the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceedings commenced, but the Ombudsman's authority had to subsist until the award was made. Once the bank invoked the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the same subject-matter, the complaint lost its foundation in law and the Ombudsman ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed further. The Scheme contemplates a limited, non-adversarial forum, and its continued exercise of power cannot survive a later invocation of a competent adjudicatory forum over the same dispute.

Conclusion: The Banking Ombudsman lost jurisdiction once the Debts Recovery Tribunal was moved on the same subject-matter, and the award could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the reliefs granted by the Banking Ombudsman in relation to the loan, repayment schedule, moratorium, and further disbursement fell within the ambit of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995.

Analysis: Clause 13(b) confines complaints concerning loans and advances to non-observance of Reserve Bank directives on interest rates, delay in sanction or prescribed time limits, and other specified RBI directions. The award went beyond those limits by directing disbursal of the balance loan, requiring further advances, fixing a financing ratio, altering the repayment schedule, and enhancing the moratorium. Those directions were not shown to flow from any breached RBI directive and therefore exceeded the narrow authority conferred by the Scheme.

Conclusion: The reliefs granted were outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction and were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned award of the Banking Ombudsman was invalid both because jurisdiction was divested by subsequent proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and because the directions issued exceeded the Scheme's limited scope.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory or scheme-based forum has limited jurisdiction, that jurisdiction must subsist at the time of decision, and relief cannot be granted beyond the specific authority conferred by the governing instrument.

---