https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449094 A writ petition challenging a Banking Ombudsman's closure order was held maintainable because the impugned action arose under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 and was amenable to writ scrutiny. The Court noted that unilateral enhancement of interest and levy of annual maintenance charges were not justified where the lender could not show a transparent, objective and consensual basis, valid notice, or acceptance consistent with RBI directions on fairness and disclosure. It also found that the complaint was closed without effective opportunity to object and without a reasoned determination, treating the closure as mechanical rather than a speaking order. The closure order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2024 08:20:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449094 A writ petition challenging a Banking Ombudsman's closure order was held maintainable because the impugned action arose under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 and was amenable to writ scrutiny. The Court noted that unilateral enhancement of interest and levy of annual maintenance charges were not justified where the lender could not show a transparent, objective and consensual basis, valid notice, or acceptance consistent with RBI directions on fairness and disclosure. It also found that the complaint was closed without effective opportunity to object and without a reasoned determination, treating the closure as mechanical rather than a speaking order. The closure order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449094