settlement, but still he has not been able to successfully substantiate his plea in this regard. Pursuant to the interim order passed, the petitioner has deposited a sum of 2,10,000/-. A refund of this amount which is 10 times of the loan, which the petitioner took, should, in my view, settle the equities in this case. To make the petitioner to pay 10 times than the amount which he took would, in my view, take care of the delay which the petitioner caused in repayment of this amount. After all, the amount which the petitioner took as a loan was not that substantial to cause any prejudice or a serious prejudice to the society in its financial dealings. Petitioner could have taken this loan from any bank where he may not have been required to pay interest at such exorbitant rates. 14% interest is not a interest which prevailed during the intervening periods and this interest against the terms and conditions of the agreement had been enhanced finally to 19.6% which is nothing but would be killing. At least, petitioner deserves some relief in equity. Without going into the legal propositions raised in the petition, I am satisfied that ends of justice would be met by requiring the petitioner to settle this loan account by payment of 2,10,000./- which he has already paid. Nothing more, thus, would be payable as the amount calculated and due against the petitioner to be sum of `6,65,000/- is too exorbitant, unreasonable and unfair.
