Snehalata Panda vs Chitta Ranjan Mishra And Another

Arindam Sinha, J

I.A. No.240 of 2022

Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and submits, there has been deliberate and wilful violation of directions made in order dated 6th March, 2018 of the coordinate Bench in disposing of his client’s writ petition. The direction was for the bank to comply with award passed by banking ombudsman, within four weeks. The award stood quoted in said order under paragraph-4. Following from the award is extracted and reproduced below.

“i)The bank shall waive all penal interest and late payment charges debited to the account of non-drawal of EMI cheques on time and recast the home loan account accordingly;

ii) The loan shall carry interest rate as per the terms and conditions of agreement executed between the bank and the complainant and the loan account shall be recast at the agreed interest rates;

iii) After the above recast, the bank shall provide an amortization chart/structured recovery statement from the stage of inception till date indicating payment of interet and principal separately from EMI/EMIs credited.

iv) The bank shall carry out a detailed scrutiny of the loan account in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and inform about the findings to her;

v) The bank shall extend benefits, if any admissible to her as per extant instructions.”

He refers to his client’s interim application no.240 of 2022, in which stands disclosed statement prepared by his client’s chartered accountant. He demonstrates therefrom, agreed 120 equated monthly installments (EMIs) were obtained in liquidation of the loan. Hence, by relying on account statements dated 3rd December, 2021, disclosed in the show cause, the bank has committed contempt since, such statement carries debit of penal interest and shows debit balance of Rs.8,57,127.20.

Mr. Biswal, learned advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemners and submits, it will appear from the statement dated 3rd December, 2021 that it contains reverse entries of penal interest.

Alleged contemners will file additional affidavit. The affidavit must disclose whether or not there was appropriation of payments against 120 EMIs, 12 against post dated cheques and the rest by deposit made from pensioned account of applicant’s husband as well as cash deposits. There must be clear demonstration of compliance with directions made by the Ombudsman, if urged by alleged contemner to relate to only 12 post dated cheques. Delay in realizing balance EMIs and interest charged thereon is to be demonstrated separately.

Mr. Tripathy prays for restraint on the bank from proceeding pursuant to notice issued under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, reply of which his client has given. Mr. Biswal opposes the prayer.

Status quo be maintained till Court adjudicates on compliance with directions made in said order dated 6th March, 2008.

The affidavit will be accepted on adjourned date upon advance copy served.

List on 2nd November, 2022.

.............................................