JUDGMENT :

I. P. Mukerji, J.

1. The writ petitioner/appellant claims to be a manufacturer of iron and steel products. To run its business from time to time from 2005, it obtained loans and advances from UCO Bank which were sanctioned and disbursed from its flagship corporate branch at 2, India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 700001. In keeping with banking practice several accounts of the appellant relating to this loan and advance were maintained by the respondent bank, namely, term loan account, cash credit account, working capital account, overdraft account and so on. The appellant asserts that its conduct in obtaining and making repayment of loan amounts was so much appreciated by the respondent bank that the Circle Office level, Credit Approval Committee had approved a favourable review of the term loan and cash credit limits. The credit facilities enjoyed by the appellant appear to have been reviewed on 29th September, 2014.

2. On 24th February, 2015 the appellant wrote to the respondent bank that they should not increase their interest rate of BR + 2.25 % i.e. 12.45% to BR + 3.75%. They wanted this concession with retrospective effect.

3. On 22nd May, 2015, the bank acceded to the appellant’s request for reduction of interest rate on the following terms and conditions:-

“1. Continuation of Concessional Rate of interest @ Base Rate + 2.25% i.e. 12.45% as against card Rate i.e. Base Rate + 4.75% i.e. 14.95% at present for the period starting from 01.10.2014 to 30.11.2014.

2. Reduction in rate of interest in cash credit account of the company from Core Rate i.e. Base Rate + 4.75% (Considering Credit Rating B+) to United bank of India Base Rate (10.00%) + 2.35 i.e. 12.35% p.a. i.e. a concession of @2.60% from Card Rate from 01.12.2014 to fall in line with lead bank (UBI) of the consortium.

While approving the reduction of rate the Competent Authority has observed:

1. If any Member bank charges higher rate of interest, the same shall be charged by our bank also.

2. Reduction in rate of interest be allowed from Prospective date once the company submit similar reduction by all other tenders.”

4. Acting in terms of the above representation of the respondent bank, the appellant by their letter dated 5th September, 2015 sought payment from the respondent bank of the excess interest received by them from the appellant for the period from December, 2014 to May, 2015 in its cash credit account. By November, 2015 according to the appellant this amount was Rs.42,96,330.64/-. By 31st March, 2016 the figure rose to Rs.61,34,431/-. On 25th May, 2016 the Chief Manager of the respondent bank made a rather vague reply. It was like this:

“Please refer to your letter dated 25.05.2016 on the captioned subject. In this connection we wish to state that the following sanction stipulation “if any Member bank charges higher rate of interest the same shall be charged by our bank”.

Accordingly, the interest is charged basing on the member banks of the consortium and interest charged by us is in order.”

5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that apart from the rate charged by the respondent bank, the highest rate charged by “any bank” in the cash credit account was 12.85%. The respondent bank charged 14.70% which was 1.85% higher than the highest rate (see paragraph 13 of the writ petition). However, in paragraph 19 of the writ petition it is alleged that the respondent bank charged @ 14.95% per annum from 1st October, 2014 till 31st October, 2015. The appellant has in their letter dated 23rd November, 2018 to the respondent bank inter alia stated that “the flagship corporate branch was convinced and have forwarded letter dated 28th May, 2018 to you on the aforesaid refund since December, 2014 to March, 2016 amounting to Rs.37,97,689.78/-.....we have been reminded that the amount will be refunded within a month i.e. before 15th December, 2018....we request