9 31.08.2026 Court No.11 J.Das CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE MAT 81 OF 2026 (IN WPA 938/2026) IA NO.CAN/1/2026 M/S. SRI BALAJEE TRADING CO. VS THE INDIAN BANK AND ORS. Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia Ms. Radhika Agarwal Ms. Parmita Chowdhury Ms. Nikita Kundu Ms. Neha Lona …For the appellant Mr. Debanjan Chakrabarty Mr. Saptarshi Kar Ms. Rupa Das …For the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 1. The grievance of the appellant is directed against an order dated 22 July 2026 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged an order passed by the Ombudsman dated 7 May 2026 dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant. 3. The appellant complains of excess interest being charged on the loan account by the respondent no.1 bank. Briefly, the appellant had availed of credit facilities from the respondent no.1 bank of Rs.1.5 crores. Upon defaulting, appropriate proceedings had been issued under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI) which were 2 ultimately settled on 23 September 2025 and a No Dues Certificate had also been issued by the respondent no.1 bank. Subsequently, the appellant filed a fresh complaint with the Ombudsman challenging the excess interest charged in respect of the above loan account. 4. By an order dated 7 May 2026, the complaint filed by the appellant was rejected. The Ombudsman after hearing both the parties found that there was no procedural irregularity, deficiency of service nor violation of any Banking Norms by the respondent no.1 bank. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed this writ petition alleging violation of its legal rights. By the impugned order, the Learned Trial Court has dismissed the writ petition and held that there was no infirmity in the decision making process. It further held that the Ombudsman justifiably held that when the appellant had repaid the outstanding dues pursuant to a recovery action initiated by the bank and the account stood closed, there was no deficiency in service or violation of banking norms. 6. Significantly, on a specific query of the Trial Court as to whether the petitioner reserved its right to challenge the action of the bank in charging excess interest at the time of payment of outstanding dues, the Advocate for the appellant 3 inspite of having been granted repeated opportunities could not produce any materials. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order has been passed erroneously and the grievance of the appellant as to excessive interest being charged by the respondent no.1 bank has not been addressed. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that there had been non-furnishing of calculation towards the interest component and the respondent no.1 bank had never provided the same to the appellant. 8. On behalf of the respondent no.1 bank it is contended that the filing of the complaint before the Ombudsman as well as these proceedings are in abuse of process and the appellant has no legally enforceable right to maintain the writ petition. In such circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. The facts of this case reveal that the appellant was a borrower who had admittedly defaulted in repayment of its loan. Pursuant to such default, the respondent no.1 bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act which stood finally settled. Subsequently, the appellant had squared of the account by making necessary payment and a No Dues Certificate had also been issued by the respondent no.1 bank. In such circumstances, the entire exercise now undertaken by the appellant smacks of ill motive. 4 10. There is no infirmity in the decision of the Ombudsman. The matter has been settled and there must be a quietus to such litigation. This is a proceeding which has been initiated by the appellant only to harass the respondent no.1 bank moreso having now obtained a No Dues Certificate. 11. In any event, there is nothing which justifies any interference with the impugned order. There is no contravention of any law. There is nothing whatsoever to interfere with the discretion exercised by Learned Single Judge. The impugned order is adequately reasoned. In such circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs assessed of Rs.1 lac payable by the appellant to the respondent no.1 bank. 12. With the above directions, MAT 81 of 2026 alongwith all connected applications stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stand vacated. 13. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied, for be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Supratim Bhattacharya, J.]