HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya WPA 938 of 2026 M/s. Sri Balajee Trading Co. Vs. The Indian Bank and Ors. For the Petitioner For the Indian Bank : Mr. Mr. Arnab Sengupta Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia Ms. Radhika Agarwal Ms. Khushi Kundu Ms. Nikita Kundu Ms. Neha Lama : Mr. Jayanta Samanta Heard on : 22.07.2026 Judgment delivered in open Court on : 22.07.2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 7th May, 2026 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, being the fourth respondent. 2. Alleging that the bank has charged interest at an excessive rate, the 2 petitioner approached the Ombudsman with a complaint. Such complaint stood closed by the impugned order. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the bank has charged interest at excessive rates, the Ombudsman ought not to have closed the complaint case. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that the loan account was classified as NPA and the borrower i.e. the petitioner herein, repaid the entire outstanding dues and the account stood closed. 5. The learned advocate for the bank places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra & Ors. reported in (2202) 1 SCC 367 and Hongking and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. vs. Awaz & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 1044 in support of his contention that the courts cannot interfere on the premise that the interest charged is excessive under the general law. 6. In reply, learned advocate for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of BMW Industries Ltd. vs. UCO Bank & Ors. reported in (2022) 5 CHN 372. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that if the interest has been charged in violation of the relevant notification and circulars, the same can be challenged in a court of law. 3 7. After going through the order passed by the Ombudsman, this Court finds that the Ombudsman took note of the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the complaint that the bank has charged excess interest in the loan account. The Ombudsman, after considering the relevant materials placed before it, observed that the loan account was classified as NPA on multiple occasions and was subsequently upgraded upon clearance of overdue amounts. The Ombudsman also took note of the contention of the bank that penal interest and charges were levied as per the sanction terms and conditions acknowledged by the borrower. The Ombudsman further noted that the borrower failed to submit renewal documents and stock statements during the operative period which triggered penal charges as per agreed terms. The recovery action under the applicable legal framework was initiated and the borrower ultimately repaid the outstanding dues and the account stands closed. 8. Taking note of the aforesaid factual position, the Ombudsman recorded that no procedural irregularity, deficiency of service or violation of banking norms is evident on the part of the bank from the supportive documents placed on record and in the light of the observation, the complaint was closed by the Ombudsman as per the provisions contained in the relevant circular. 9. On a specific query of the Court as to whether the petitioner reserved its right to challenge the action of the bank in charging excess 4 interest at the time of payment of the outstanding dues, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in spite of being granted repeated opportunities, could not produce any materials in that regard. 10. After having repaid the outstanding dues without any protect at that time and after the account stood closed, it does not lie in the mouth of the borrower at this stage to turn around and contend that the interest was charged by the bank at excessive rates. The petitioner is trying to reopen an issue which stood settled with the payment of outstanding dues and closure of account. 11. There is no quarrel of the proposition to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra (supra) that section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act was inserted in order to take away power of the court to reopen a transaction between a banking company and its debtor on the ground that the rate of interest charged is excessive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the distinction between the court’s power to interfere on a premise that the interest charged is excessive under the general law and court’s interference on the premise that the interest charged is in contravention of the circulars/directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a former case it would not be permissible in view of the bar enacted by Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act while in the later case it would be permissible because of the Reserve Bank’s 5 circulars and directions having statutory force under Section 21/35A of the Act having been violated. 12. As observed hereinbefore that the petitioner who was the borrower has repaid the outstanding dues without any protest and the account stood closed. Thus, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra (supra) more particularly the distinction drawn in paragraph 53 of the reports cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the case on hand. 13. In BMW Industries Ltd. (supra), the bank took a decision to refund the amount on account of over-charged interest. Thus, the said decision being the distinguishable of facts cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. 14. In Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied the well-settled proposition of law that Section 21A creates an embargo upon the courts/tribunal to reopen and adjudicate upon transactions on the ground that the rate of interest is excessive. 15. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court does not find that there is any infirmity in the decision making process. The Ombudsman rightly held that when the borrower/petitioner repaid the outstanding dues pursuant to a recovery action initiated by the Bank and the account stood closed, no deficiency in service or 6 violation of Banking norms is evident. 16. In view of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) Item No.72 Court No.-10 Sanjib