CW – 153/2004 - M/s Raj Tex Vs. RFC & Anr. : Judgment dt.10.4.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.153/2004 M/s Raj Tex Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Anr. Date of judgment : 10th April, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Sinha, for the respondent. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels for final disposal, as agreed. 2. By the additional affidavit filed today, the respondent RFC has explained that the amount in question debited to the loan account No.6805 of the petitioner on 1.7.2003 amounting to Rs.1,47,062/- was deposited by the petitioner on 19.1.2004. This was however purportedly done in pursuance of the ex-parte direction given by this Court on 15.1.2004 while issuing notices of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amount included penal interest also. He further submits that though the amount shown due in the contemporary period in the year 1995 in the said loan account No.6805 was cleared by the petitioner by depositing a cheque of Rs.11,780/- on 1.12.1998 after 5 years in the year 2003 on account of alleged correction of a mistake of not CW – 153/2004 - M/s Raj Tex Vs. RFC & Anr. : Judgment dt.10.4.08 2/3 charging the modified rate of interest of 16% in the said loan account as per modification deed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the respondent-RFC could have charged interest and debited the same at the rate of 16% per annum, the petitioner was not at fault for such mistake but it is the fault of the respondent RFC of not having debited the interest as per the modification deed at the rate of 16% per annum during the contemporary period. It is only when the petitioner approached the respondent RFC in the year 2003 for obtaining No Due Certificate in respect of the said loan account though cleared by him in the year 1995 as he intended to sell the unit to somebody else that the respondent RFC pointed out the said mistake and debited the loan account with the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,47,062/-. 4. The the prayer of the petitioner that in such circumstances, penal interest could not be charged and debited after long lapse of five years, appears to be justified because though as per the contract the respondent RFC could have charged the modified rate of interest @ 16% per annum after 1.4.1995 as the respondent RFC has extended the LDR from 1.4.1995 to 1.4.1997, since the CW – 153/2004 - M/s Raj Tex Vs. RFC & Anr. : Judgment dt.10.4.08 3/3 respondent RFC failed to debit such modified interest to the loan account in the contemporary period, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay any penal interest on such amount of interest at the modified rate. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent RFC shall recompute this levy of interest debited by it in the loan account No.6805 of the petitioner on 1.7.2003 at the simple rate of interest of 16% per annum and the penal interest part thereof shall be struck off. The respondent RFC shall recompute such amount within a period of one week from today and the excess paid shall be refunded back to the petitioner forthwith. 6. The excess amount of refund shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till actual date of refund. If the said money is not refunded within two weeks from today, the petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate contempt action against the concerned authority of respondent RFC. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.67 babulal/-