O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the respondent in E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017, which is now pending on the file of the District Court - II, Kancheepuram, questioning continuation of such proceedings and seeking intervention of the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court.

2.The revision petitioner claimed that they are non-banking financial organisation carrying on business transactions under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It is stated that they get loan from outside persons and thereafter, in the course their normal business, lend the same to persons or also to industries and they confirm to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and collect interest on such lending at the contractual rates which had been agreed between the parties. It had been claimed that they would not come under the definition of a money lender as stated under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957 and the amount they advanced cannot be also categorized as a loan.

3.It is claimed that they have to be classified only as a Bank as stipulated under Section 1(k) of the aforementioned Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957. In effect, the main crux of the arguments advanced by Mr.K.V.Anandhakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioners are, a Bank as described under Section 1(k) of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, since they are a financial or banking institution notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu in its gazette and, the amount which they advanced cannot be categorized as a loan under Section 2(6)(v), since it is an advance made by a person carrying on business, in the regular course of such business. The regular course of the business of the revision petitioner is to lend money. They are governed by the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

4.It is further stated that the petitioners would also not come under the ambit or mischief of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The amount which they lend, is on contractual basis and therefore, it cannot be categorized as a loan again under Section 2(6) of the said Act. Loan under the said Act includes, loan advanced with interest collected on daily basis, on hourly basis and called as kandhu vatti, meter vatti or thandal. It is steneously stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner does not engage themselves in such lending of loans on such interest. The interest which they charge are contractual in nature which is mutually accepted even by the borrower and confirms to the guidelienes of the Reserve Bank of India.

5.In the normal course of business, they appear to have lent money to the respondent herein and it is claimed that during the course of such transaction while obtaining the amount, on 03.01.2014, the respondent had also mortgaged the property of his father. There was on obligation to repay the amount in instalments and having failed to do so, the amount only accrued and it is claimed that a sum of Rs.5,69,454/- was due and payable as on 05.02.2017. This had increased to Rs.6,48,543/- as on 26.07.2017.

6.The respondent herein then, filed E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017 before the District Court – II at Kancheepuram, taking advantage of Section 5 of the Prevention of Extradinory Interest Act, 2003. He further sought permission in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in the said E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,200/- into Court.

7.An order had been passed on 19.06.2018 by the learned District Judge, Kancheepuram permitting the respondent to deposit the said sum of Rs.1,07,200/- in Court deposit. Taking umbrage of that particular order and further assailing the pendency of E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017 itself, present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike out the said E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017 and also interfere with the order dated 19.06.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018.

8.Unfortunately, though the respondent had been served and t