W.P.No.3077 of 2015

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

W.P.No.3077 of 2015

Monotech Systems Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, City Centre,

No.66, Thirumalai Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

Rep. By its General Manager – Finance and Accounts,

K.Gangaiah

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Standard Chartered Bank,

SME Banking, 1^st Floor Sagar Amar Court,

59, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai, Rep. By its Business Head

2.Standard Chartered Bank,

SME Banking, 2^nd Floor, 19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001,

Rep. By Business Head SME

3.The Chief Operative Officer,

Standard Chartered Bank,

Cresenzo, C38/39, G Block,

Crescent Association Club,

Bandra Curla Complex, Bandra East,

Mumbai – 400 051.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3077 of 2015

4.The Chief General Manager in charge,

Department of Supervision,

Reserve Bank of India, Centre India,

World Tradde Centre, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai – 400 005.

5.Banking Ombudsman,

Reserve Bank of India Building,

No.16, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

..Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

of the 5^th respondent in proceedings dated 31.07.2014 in BO (che)/750/C-

0110/2014-15 quash the same consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to

refund a sum of Rs.5,05,620/- and Rs.20,78,660/- illegally and allegedly

deducted towards renewal charges, foreclosure charges together with interst

@ 24% p.a. from 30.08.2013 and 02.01.2014 respectively until the date of

payment to the petitioner in terms of the complaint dated 03.07.2014 filed

before the 5^th respondent.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Abdul Razak

For Respondents

: Ms.V.Aishwarya for

M/s.R & P Partners for R1 to R3

R4 & R5 – served – No appearance

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3077 of 2015

O R D E R

Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order of the Banking

Ombudsmen, rejecting the challenge made by the petitioner to the deduction

of pre-payment and renewal charges by the Bank. The petitioner had filed

certain facilities from the bank, which included overdraft facility, import

letter of credit, buyer's credit payment undertaking, working capital demand

loan facility, Bank guarantee facility. All put together, the petitioner was

granted facilities to the tune of Rs.18,00,00,000/-. The facilities were to be

alive till 10.08.2013.

2.Admittedly, the petitioner repaid the entire amount due to the

Bank on 30.10.2013. Therefore, on the crucial date namely, 30.10.2013

when the facilities had expired, the petitioner owed certain monies to the

bank therefore, the Bank had no other option to renew the facilities. After

such renewal, the petitioner repaid the entire amounts on 30.10.2013. The

Bank deducted pre-payment charges and renewal charges. Aggrieved, the

petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsmen under the scheme. The

Banking Ombudsmen rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3077 of 2015

petitioner is before this Court.

3.It is not for the Writ Court to re-write the contract between the

parties. As per the contract entered into between theparties, the petitioner

has agreed to pay 2% as pre-payment charges as well as renewal charges.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

contract entered on 13.08.2013 and therefore, the bank should not have

renewed it automatically. It is his further contention that if the renewal had

not happened then there is no question of pre-payment charges. I have

considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.The contract provides for payment of pre-payment charges at

2% as well as payment of renewal charges. The Bank, in its reply had stated

that the renewal was made, since the bank did not hear from the petitioner

on 13.08.2013. Consid