Petitions challenging high interest rates on bank term loans were dismissed. The court held that the Banking Ombudsman had already considered the claim and the account was settled. Writ court is not the appropriate forum for settled fact disputes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6606/2002
Shrenik Marble Limited, Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer. A company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, through Director Mool Chand Luhadia S/o Shri Suwa Lal Luhadia, aged about 80 years, resident of Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6947/2002
M/s Nav Bharat Buildcom Private Limited, Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer. A company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. Converting an existing partnership firm namely Nav Bharat Construction Company into a Private Limited Company under Part IX of the Companies Act, through Director Mool Chand Luhadia S/o Shri Suwa Lal Luhadia, aged about 80 years, resident of Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
[CW-6606/2002]
(2 of 3)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Srivastva Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order
19/01/2023
Present petitions are filed being aggrieved of the excess rate of interest charged on term loans by the Bank, with the following
prayers:-
“i. to issue any order or direction or writ of any nature for quashing the order of fixing 01.11.1997 for the purpose of reduction in rate of interest payable on all kinds of loan including term loan and the reduce rate of interest may kindly be made applicable on all kinds of loan granted by the bank even prior to 01.11.1997 and from the date, the rate of interest was reduced by the Bank:
ii. to issue any order or direction or writ of any nature for directing the non-petitioners to charge the reduce rate of interest from the petitioner from the date the rate was decreased by the Bank in place of 01.04.2001;
iii. to issue any order or direction or writ of any nature directing the non-petitioners to calculate the loan amount after charging reduce rate of interest the date the interest rate was decreased in place of 01.04.2001:
iv. or pass any order for writ as deemed fit in favour of the petitioner may kindly be issued.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have no alternative, efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance and therefore, are constrained to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the respondents have drawn attention of this Court to (Annexure-4) i.e. order dated 27.12.2000, wherein the Banking Ombudsman has already considered the complaint
(3 of 3)
[CW-6606/2002]
against the erstwhile, SBBJ, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer and after analyzing the material on record, has disposed of the claim of the petitioners with liberty to the petitioners to submit his grievance, if any, within a period of seven days. The said order of Ombudsman dated 27.12.2000 was never challenged by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the loan account is already settled and as such nothing remains in the present petitions.
Considering the arguments put forth by both the sides and upon perusal of the record, it is noted by this Court that by way of present writ petitions, directions are sought for quashing the order of fixing the rate of interest payable in all kinds of loan vide order dated 01.11.1997. The matter was duly considered by ombudsman and the order of the Ombudsman was never assailed. Even the loan account has been settled. The present petitions appears to be an afterthought, which deals with disputed questions of facts qua damages and refund, for which the writ court is not the appropriate forum.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Arun/59-60
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum to quash an interest rate fixation order when an alternate efficacious remedy via Banking Ombudsman exists and the loan account is already settled.
Whether writ courts are competent to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding damages and refund in banking matters.
Shrenik Marble Limited
Nav Bharat Buildcom Private Limited
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Reserve Bank of India
SAMEER JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
