CONT.P.(MD).No.271 and 1957 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CONT.P.(MD).Nos.271 and 1957 of 2021 in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.356 Of 2015 Cont.P.(MD).No.271 of 2021 C.Thangaraja ...Petitioner Vs. 1.C.Kesavan, Branch Manager, Muthoottu Mini Financiers (Private) Limited, 16/60 A, Vivekanandapuram Junction, Kanyakumari Main Road, Kanyakumari District. 2.M.Mathew Muthottu, Managing Director, Muthoottu Mini Financiers (Private) Limited, Corporate Office, Mini MuthottuTech Towers, Kaloor, Cochin-17. ...Respondents PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act to punish the contemnors / respondents for willful disobedient of the order made in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.356 of 2015 dated 05.03.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT.P.(MD).No.271 and 1957 of 2021 Cont.P.(MD).No.1957 of 2021 King Vedhamanickam ...Petitioner Vs. Thangaraja ...Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act to punish the contemnor / respondent for willful disobedient of the order made in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.356 of 2015 dated 05.03.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balaji COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.356 of 2015 dated 05.03.2020. 2. Contempt Petition (MD) No.271 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents for demanding a highly exorbitant rate of interest, and Contempt Petition (MD) No.1957 of 2021 has been filed by the Assistant Branch Manager of Muthoottu Mini Financiers (Private) Limited for non-payment of the loan amount by the petitioner. 3. The parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking in Cont. (MD.No.271 of 2021. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT.P.(MD).No.271 and 1957 of 2021 4. This Court perused the entire records. 5. On perusal of the entire records reveals the fact that the petitioner had pledged some jewels at the Muthoottu Mini Financiers (Private) Limited and availed a loan amount of Rs.1,19,000/- on 10.11.2012 and Rs.11,20,000/- on 14.12.2012 and Rs.27,000/- on 04.04.2013 and Rs.15,000/- on 15.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent to redeem the jewels within a period of one year from the date of pledging the jewels. However, the first respondent claimed exorbitant interest rate more than 30% per annum without following the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari District against the Branch Manager and Managing Director of the Muthoottu Mini Financiers (Private) Limited / respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Cont.(MD).No.271 of 2021 under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. However, the police officials did not take any steps to register the complaint. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari, seeking a direction to the police officials to register the complaint. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari, dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.2821 of 2015 on 21.07.2015. Against which, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.(MD).No.356 of 2015 before this Court and on 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT.P.(MD).No.271 and 1957 of 2021 04.09.2018 this Court dismissed the case. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Slp.Crl.No. 2059 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.1205 of 2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to the file of the Court and this Court by an order dated 05.03.2020 directing the respondents to calculate the principal amount as well as the interest, including the permissible penal interest as per the RBI guidelines, within a period of four weeks and also directed the petitioner to settle the entire amount and further directed the respondents to return the jewels to the petitioner after receipt of the said loan amount and interest. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent to redeem the jewels and ready to settle the amount as demanded by the first respondent. However, the first respondent sent a letter to the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 45,74,919, which is highly exorbitant. Hence, the petitioner filed a 6. It is seen that when a demand notice is issued by the first respondent, if the petitioner has any grievance, he must approach the appropriate forum to challenge the demand notice made by the first respondent, rather than filing a contempt petition, which is not maintainable. 7. In the result, the Contempt Petitions stand dismissed. 06.06.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT.P.(MD).No.271 and 1957 of 2021 TSG M.DHANDAPANI, J. TSG CONT.P.(MD).Nos.271 and 1957 of 2021 in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.356 of 2015 06.06.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis