1. The application filed under section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (the Act) seeking directions from this Bench to the respondents to pay the excess interest of Rs. 1,22,519/- collected by the respondent company.

2. Shri P C Harikumar, learned Counsel for the applicant in support of pleadings submitted that the applicant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 09.10.1991 vide account No.3885 and another sum of Rs.50,000/- vide account No.3940. He submitted in security of the due payment of the two loan account the applicant mortgaged the property situated at door No. 16, Asokan Street, Bharathipuram, Chrompet, Chennai towards the security of loan amount. The respondent have collected a sum of Rs.3,07,599/- towards the loan account. As per the provisions laid down for nidhi companies, they should not collect interest at a rate of more than 24% per annum. If the interest is calculated at the rate of 24% per annum till the settlement of the applicant's loan amount which comes to Rs. 1,91,300/-. The respondent company had collected excess interest of Rs. 1,16,299/-. The respondent company refunded an amount of Rs. 10,080/- on demand made by the applicant leaving balance of Rs. 1,06,290/-. The learned Counsel further submitted that section 45(1) (bb) of the RBI Act, the applicant's grievance falls under the said provision. Hence this Company Law Board has jurisdiction under 45QA of the RBI Act to redress the grievance of the applicant. In view of the above he requested this Bench to direct the respondent to pay the excess amount of interest collected by the respondent company.

3. Shri K. Ramasamy, learned Counsel for the respondent company filed his detailed counter and submitted that the application is not maintainable under section 45QA of the RBI Act and the averments made in the application are totally false and liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. He submitted that the applicant has the practice of claiming refund of excess interest amount from the respondent company on various time on different dates and this practice was commenced from 1999 till date.

4. It is admitted fact that the applicant had taken two mortgage loans of Rs.50,000/- on 09.10.1991 and Rs.50,000/- on 10.11.1991 agree to repay the same through monthly recurring deposit of Rs.400/- per month for each loan and monthly interest on the above two loans as per the terms and conditions of mortgage deeds and the applicant defaulted in repayment of monthly interest due from October 1992 and also did not contribute to the monthly recurring deposit of Rs.400/- each. The applicant cleared off his loan by remitting cash into loans account after setting of interest payable on his recurring deposits account. The applicant has got back all the security documents as the loans are fully discharged and there is no complaint whatsoever at the time of clearing the loan.

5. The applicant sent a legal notice dated 15.11.2000 claiming a sum of Rs.24,796/- stating that an excess amount of interest collected from him by the Company. The company replied to the said notice. The applicant being one of the directors of the Company exerting his aggressive tactics and indecent behaviour and threatening attitude of the very existence of the Company the board of directors to buy peace refunded Rs.24,796/- vide cheque dated 29.11.2000 and was ratified in the board meeting held on 30.11.2000. After receipt of the above amount the applicant issued further legal notice demanding a different amount on different calculations and finally arrived at a sum of Rs. 1,79,540/-. He also filed suit before City Civil Court II in OS No.2245 of 2002 by claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- and another petition against the statutory auditors of the first respondent company claiming damages of Rs.50,000/-.

6. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent company being a company notified by the Central Government under section 620A of the Companies Act 1956 as a 'Nidhi' company. The busi