IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY A.S.Ramalingam Proprietor, M/s.Kuppanna Poultry Farm, S/o.A.R.Subramaniam, 8/135, Alampalayam, Muthur, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank Of India, Fort Glacis, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

2.The General Manager, Canara Bank, Chennai Circle, Pb.1078, 563 /1 Anna Salai, Teynampeet - 600 018, Chennai.

3.The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Usha Rice Mill Campus, Dharampuram Road, Tiruppur 641 604.

4.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mangalapatti Branch, Vellakovil Road, Muthur, Vellakovil 638 105, Tiruppur District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to refund Rs.1,23,20,000/ - with interest at the rate of 12 percent which was illegally collected towards pre - closure charges on 06/03/2023 from my cash Credit Loan Account No.1352261010292 for releasing the documents given towards security for the loan, by considering th petitioners representations dated

13/02/2023, 24/02/2023, 27/02/2023.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent(s): Mr.M.L. Ganesh, for R2 to 4 R-1 No appearance

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to refund Rs.1,23,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%, which was illegally collected towards pre-closure charges on 06.03.2023 from my cash Credit Loan Account No.1352261010292 for releasing the documents given towards security for the loan, by considering the petitioner’s representations dated 13.02.2023, 24.02.2023 & 27.02.2023.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner, being an account holder of the 4^th respondent-bank for the past 2 decades, had intended to avail loan to the tune of Rs.29 Crores. Thereafter, when he made an attempt to pre-close the said loan, the 4^th respondent had imposed certain unnecessary conditions.

3. Further, he would contend that as per the circulars dated 25.11.2008 &

12.11.2010, issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), it is mandatory on the part of the 4^th respondent to disclose all the terms and condition for pre-closure of loan at the time of issuance of sanction letter. In this case, two sanction memorandums were issued on 26.03.2021 & 19.03.2022 to the petitioner. However, the 4^th respondent had not disclosed with regard to the aforesaid conditions in both the sanction memorandums, which is contrary to the aforesaid circulars issued by RBI. In this regard, the representations were made by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent on 03.10.2022, 11.10.2022, 13.02.2023 & 24.02.2023. However, the same are not yet considered by the 4^th respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the sanction letter dated 19.03.2020, it has been clearly mentioned that “fore-closure and charges as applicable”. Therefore, he vehemently opposed for the submissions made by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

6. In the case on hand, the issues arises for consideration are as follows:

i) whether the petitioner is liable to pay fore-closure charges ? and ii) whether the bank is empowered to impose fore-closure charges?

7. According to the petitioner, he is maintaining account in the 4^th respondent-bank for the past 2 decades. In such case, normally, no charge will be imposed against the petitioner. Even if the 4^th respondent is intend to impose any charges, they should have disclosed with regard to the same in the sanction letter issued to the petitioner. In this regard, a reference was made by the petitioner to the 2 circulars dated 25.11.2008 & 12.11.2010 issued by RBI an