IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA ON THE 4^th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 REVIEW PETITION No. 1736 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

MADHYA PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION FINANCE HOUSE, AB ROAD, NEAR GEETA BHAWAN CHOURAHA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHEKHAR BHARGAVA, SENIOR ADV. WITH SMT. RITU BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)

AND AVALANCHE MULTI TRADING PVT. LTD. ACTING THROUGH AKSHAY GOYAL DIRECTOR M-5, NAVNEET DARSHAN, OLD PALASIA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADV. &

SHRI R.C.SINHAL, ADVOCATE )

….............................................................................................................

This petition coming on for order this day, JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR passed the following:

ORDER

01. This Review Petition has been filed for recall/review of the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16372/2019. whereby the petition filed by the respondent Avalanche Multi Trading Pvt. Ltd. was allowed and the petitioner/respondent was directed to pay the compound interest to the respondent/petitioner @ 12% per annum, in the same manner and method as is being charged by the petitioner from its borrowers.

02. In brief, facts of the case are that W.P. No.16372/2019 was filed by the respondent, therein claiming interest @ 12% which is being charged by the petitioner Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (herein referred as the MPFC) from its borrowers on the amount of Rs.10,51,00,000/-already refunded to the respondent. While allowing the aforesaid petition, this Court has also recorded the admission on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner/MPFC, whereby he informed this Court that MPFC charges the interest compounded monthly from its borrowers and there is no dispute about it.

03. Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid admission was made by the counsel for the petitioner without taking any instructions from the MPFC and, thus, it is not binding on the petitioner.

Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the report submitted by Shri R.C. Sinhal, Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curie by this Court in the petition vide order dated 13.1.2020 to ascertain the rate of interest charged by the MPFC from its borrowers. At the request of Shri Sinhal the petitioner/MPFC was directed to file the statements of five loan accounts of the year 2019-2020 duly supported by an affidavit of the responsible Officer so that Shri Sinhal, can assist the Court to form an opinion regarding the rate of interest charged by the MPFC from its borrowers.

Shri R.C. Sinhal, who is also subsequently arrayed as respondent No.2, has submitted his report on 29.2.2020, wherein after going through the 05 loan accounts furnished by the MPFC to him, he has opined that simple interest is being charged by the MPFC from its borrowers. But where interest has not been paid on due dates, compound interest has been charged.

04. Shri Bhargava has submitted that in the W.P. 16372/2019, on asking of this Court, when the counsel for the MPFC has informed that the interest is being charged from its borrowers as compound interest, there was absolutely no instruction received by him from the MPFC and as he was simply put a question during the course of the argument and had no occasion to discuss this matter with the Officers of the MPFC, the admission made by him on behalf of the MPFC is not binding on them, and this fact is also supported by the report submitted by Amicus Curie - Shri R.C. Sinhal, advocate. 05. Shri Shekhar Bhargava has also submitted that when the aforesaid petition was being heard, the statement of the counsel appearing for the petitioner was recorded separately on 1.11.2019, which is also the date of final order and, as the aforesaid query made by this Court caught the counsel for the petitioner with surprise, and without time to seek instructions counsel