THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4589 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.6.5 lakhs from the respondent-Bank. The loan was to be repaid in 240 monthly instalments of Rs.7,124/- It is stated that the petitioner paid instalments up to the recent past, regularly. But, on account of the serious ill-health of her husband, she could not pay certain instalments, in the recent past. She is said to have cleared the outstanding instalments by 17.02.2011. The respondent is said to have issued a statement, dated 19.02.201 requiring the petitioner to pay the entire balance of Rs.4,62,282/- and surcharges amounting to Rs.29,000/-. It is alleged that a further sum of Rs.50,000/- is being demanded as penal interest. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the steps initiated by the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, who took notice at the stage of admission. The loan of Rs.Rs.6,50,000/- obtained by the petitioner is to be repaid over a period of 20 years. In other words, the bank will be realizing a sum of Rs.17 lakhs towards the account, may be spread over to two decades. It must not be forgotten that it is on account of the frail financial capacity of the petitioner that she had obtained loan. The occasional default committed by the petitioner in payment of the monthly instalments cannot give rise to winding up of the entire transaction and insistence on payment of the entire loan amount. It is not as if the statement was issued to the petitioner and thereafter she paid the dues. The dues were cleared on 17.02.2011, and the statement was given two days thereafter. The loss, if at all, would be of small amount of interest that is payable upon the instalments for the delay, which in turn would be very meager. The respondent is a Nationalized Bank and it cannot act as a private agency, which would resort to all means to squeeze the borrowers. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondent shall not levy any additional amount upon the petitioner over and above the instalments, in case the petitioner has cleared the instalments up to date. The petitioner shall be under obligation to pay the EMI’s regularly. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.02.2011. GJ