Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010057142021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2294/2021 ARCHANA PAREEK D/O LATE DINDOYAL PAREEK VILLAGE SIMOLUGURI, PO AND PS PANIGAON, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, LOCATED OF GNB ROAD, CHANDMARI COLONY, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI 781003 2:BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MAHANTA, Advocate for the Respondent : MS F RAHMAN, Mukesh Sharma BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 28.04.2026 Heard Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Page No.# 2/4 the respondent bank. 2. By way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks exemption from compound interest and challenges the forfeiture of the original LIC policies, which were deposited at the relevant point of time when she had availed the loan. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an account holder of Union Bank of India, Lakhimpur Branch. In the year 2016, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional branch of the bank to avail a loan amounting to Rupees One Lakh and pledged two LIC policies as security in the custody of the bank. Although she initially paid the monthly instalments, since 2018 she has been unable to continue payment of the same, as a result of which the bank authorities imposed penalty charges on the principal amount. 4. The petitioner, claiming to be a PhD student with no independent source of income, sought exemption from the penalty charges/compound interest imposed by the authorities. However, as the same was not acceded to by the bank authorities, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the charging of compound interest is arbitrary and, considering the financial condition of the petitioner, her offer for a one- time settlement made to the bank authorities as far back as in 2020 ought to have been accepted. 6. On the contrary, Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, submits that the loan account of the petitioner Page No.# 3/4 has already been closed by adjusting the proceeds of the two LIC policies upon their maturity, and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner, having taken a loan of Rupees One Lakh from the respondent bank authorities, was bound under the terms and conditions of the loan to repay the same and, in the event of default, to face the consequences as stipulated therein. The aforesaid being a contractual arrangement, the same falls outside the scope and ambit of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. It further appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the two LIC policies belonging to the petitioner, which had been pledged to the bank authorities at the time of availing the loan, matured and were adjusted against the loan account, and thereafter, the account was closed. It is also apparent that the recourse taken by the respondent bank to recover the loan amount was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. 9. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the interim order of this Court restraining the respondent bank from taking coercive measures, the loan account ought not to have been closed by adjusting the LIC policies, the said contention is misplaced. It appears that this Court, on 31.03.2021, while issuing notice, directed that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner till the returnable date. It further appears that on 12.06.2023, this Court continued the interim order passed earlier till Page No.# 4/4 the next date of listing; however, the said interim order was not continued thereafter. The orders dated 18.12.2025, 04.02.2026, 11.02.2026, 18.02.2026, 20.03.2026, and 23.04.2026 have been perused, which indicate that the interim order was not continued thereafter. In fact, no submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner after the matter was taken up on 12.06.2023 seeking continuation of the interim order. 10. That being so, upon the LIC policies maturing and being adjusted against the loan account, the petitioner cannot contend that the same was done in violation of the interim order, which had already spent its force. 11. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant