The respondents, who admittedly borrowed loan from the petitioners herein, laid three Original Petitions before the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai invoking the provision under sections 5(1) and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 praying for declaration that the respondents herein are not liable to pay the exorbitant interest at the rate of 33% per annum towards the loan amount, for a direction to the petitioners herein to charge interest at the rate of 9% for the secured loan, for passing an order of adjustment of the interest paid by the respondents to the petitioners herein over and above the rate of 9% per annum and also to direct the petitioners herein to return the security documents given to them by the respondents. They have also sought for an injunction restraining the petitioners herein from filing criminal complaints for the recovery of the said loan transaction.

.2. The Trial Court, having entertained the original petition filed by the respondents herein under section 5(1) and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, granted interim relief to the respondents herein. At that stage, the present revision petitions have been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the aforesaid O.P. Proceedings initiated by the respondents from the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

.3. Therevision petitioners have contended as follows:-

.The respondents have sought to project the petitions under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 when the Act, per se, does not apply to loan transaction between the revision petitioners and the respondents. The revision petitioners being a non-banking financial corporation, is governed by Reserve Bank of India Act. Therefore, the interest charged by the revision petitioners does not fall under the definition of exorbitant interest under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The Arbitration process had already been initiated by the revision petitioners as per the terms of the loan agreements. The Reserve Bank of India has not fixed a cap on the rates at which the non-banking financial corporation could lend money. The respondents also had not deposited the amount ought to have been deposited under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The loan advanced by the petitioners to the respondents fall under the excluded category referred to under section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957. Contending that the court below has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it under law and has exceeded the scope of its authority and committed apparent and grave error in jurisdiction and law, the petitioners pray for interference in order to strike off the whole O.P proceedings from the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

.4. Therespondents, in their counter, have contended as follows:-

.The respondents have mortgaged their properties which are worth much more than the value of the loan sanctioned. All the loans availed by the respondents from the petitioners are secured loans. The revision petitioners have increased the rate of interest from 25% to 26.5% with effect from 1st August 2008 and again 33% per annum inspite of the protest raised by the respondents. The revision petitioners are bound to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957 and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The respondents were forced to resort to the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 before the Special Court viz., the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The Reserve Bank of India has no authority to exempt the non-banking financial corporations from t