M/S SRI BALAJEE TRADING CO vs THE INDIAN BANK AND ORS

9
31.08.2026
Court No.11
J.Das
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE

MAT 81 OF 2026
(IN WPA 938/2026)
IA NO.CAN/1/2026

M/S. SRI BALAJEE TRADING CO.
VS
THE INDIAN BANK AND ORS.


Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia
Ms. Radhika Agarwal
Ms. Parmita Chowdhury
Ms. Nikita Kundu
Ms. Neha Lona
…For the appellant


Mr. Debanjan Chakrabarty
Mr. Saptarshi Kar
Ms. Rupa Das
…For the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3


1. The grievance of the appellant is directed against
an order dated 22 July 2026 dismissing the writ
petition.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged an order
passed by the Ombudsman dated 7 May 2026
dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant.
3. The appellant complains of excess interest being
charged on the loan account by the respondent
no.1 bank. Briefly, the appellant had availed of
credit facilities from the respondent no.1 bank of
Rs.1.5 crores. Upon defaulting, appropriate
proceedings had been issued under section 13(2)
and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI) which were

2
ultimately settled on 23 September 2025 and a No
Dues Certificate had also been issued by the
respondent no.1 bank. Subsequently, the
appellant filed a fresh complaint with the
Ombudsman challenging the excess interest
charged in respect of the above loan account.
4. By an order dated 7 May 2026, the complaint filed
by the appellant was rejected. The Ombudsman
after hearing both the parties found that there
was no procedural irregularity, deficiency of
service nor violation of any Banking Norms by the
respondent no.1 bank.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant
filed this writ petition alleging violation of its legal
rights. By the impugned order, the Learned Trial
Court has dismissed the writ petition and held
that there was no infirmity in the decision making
process. It further held that the Ombudsman
justifiably held that when the appellant had
repaid the outstanding dues pursuant to a
recovery action initiated by the bank and the
account stood closed, there was no deficiency in
service or violation of banking norms.

6. Significantly, on a specific query of the Trial Court
as to whether the petitioner reserved its right to
challenge the action of the bank in charging
excess interest at the time of payment of
outstanding dues, the Advocate for the appellant

3
inspite of having been granted repeated

opportunities could not produce any materials.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
impugned order has been passed erroneously and
the grievance of the appellant as to excessive
interest being charged by the respondent no.1
bank has not been addressed. It is also submitted
on behalf of the appellant that there had been
non-furnishing of calculation towards the interest
component and the respondent no.1 bank had
never provided the same to the appellant.
8. On behalf of the respondent no.1 bank it is
contended that the filing of the complaint before
the Ombudsman as well as these proceedings are
in abuse of process and the appellant has no
legally enforceable right to maintain the writ
petition. In such circumstances, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. The facts of this case reveal that the appellant was
a borrower who had admittedly defaulted in
repayment of its loan. Pursuant to such default,
the respondent no.1 bank had initiated
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act which stood
finally settled. Subsequently, the appellant had
squared of the account by making necessary
payment and a No Dues Certificate had also been
issued by the respondent no.1 bank. In such
circumstances, the entire exercise now
undertaken by the appellant smacks of ill motive.

4
10. There is no infirmity in the decision of the
Ombudsman. The matter has been settled and
there must be a quietus to such litigation. This is
a proceeding which has been initiated by the
appellant only to harass the respondent no.1 bank
moreso having now obtained a No Dues
Certificate.
11. In any event, there is nothing which justifies any
interference with the impugned order. There is no
contravention of any law. There is nothing
whatsoever to interfere with the discretion
exercised by Learned Single Judge. The impugned
order is adequately reasoned. In such
circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs
assessed of Rs.1 lac payable by the appellant to
the respondent no.1 bank.
12. With the above directions, MAT 81 of 2026
alongwith all connected applications stand
disposed of. Interim order, if any, stand vacated.
13. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied,
for be given to the parties upon compliance of all
necessary formalities.

[Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.]

[Supratim Bhattacharya, J.]