PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, AGM, Central Bank of India and CMD, Central Bank of India- OPs heard. This is an indisputable fact that the loan was sanctioned in favour of Sushma Bhatia, Prop. M/s Rising Sun – Complainant under the “Cent Trade Scheme” of the Bank. Copy of sanction was placed on the lower court records at Ex. R-1. The loan papers were got prepared by the Bank from the complainant for sanctioning a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- which were also produced from R-5 to R-20. It is surprising to note that both the Fora below found that the rate of interest mentioned in the above said documents was 11.50% (Bank’s BPLR Minus 1.0%). It is also transpired that while getting the documents executed on March 31st, 2009. No rate of interest was mentioned in the: (a) Demand Promissory Note (b) Letter of Interest ( c) Form ADV/1 (d) Documents of consent (e) Deed of guarantee etc. 2. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is one more document which is letter of hypothecation wherein para No. 7, it is mentioned:- “7. Compound interest at the rate of 4.0 per cent over the Bank rate subject to a minimum of 16.5 per cent per annum or at such other rule as may from time to time be fixed by the Bank by notice in writing to the Borrower with monthly rests calculated according to the Bank’s usual practice shall be paid on the daily balance in the Bank’s favour in the said Cash Credit account and shall be paid by the Borrowers as and when demanded by the Bank.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this clearly establishes that the rate of interest was 16.5% and both the Fora below have committed an error by coming to the conclusion that the rate of interest was 11.50% only. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention towards the letter written by the petitioners which does not bear any receipt proof, which is dated 20.10.2009, mentions as follows:- “In the above matter we may submit that C/C limit of 30 lacs under hypo was sanctioned to you in file 2009 with the terms and conditions that sale of interest on monthly rests will be charged on BPLR + 4%. By mistake the interest rate was being charged by the computer system by which has been now rectified.” 5. Counsel for the petitioners has also invited our attention towards the consent clause, shown as R-21 which contains the consent clauses. 6. All these arguments lack conviction. There is no proof of service of this letter. Moreover, there is no consent of this letter as such. This is a mistake committed by the Bankers, which the counsel for the petitioners does not dispute. This shows their negligence, inaction and passivity. When they have assured that they will not charge interest more than 11.50%, how they can turn back from their previous stance and say that the interest is 16.5%. The mere mention of 16.5% interest at one document does not cut much ice. It is well settled that if a document is patient of two interpretations its benefit has to go to the subject. The Revision Petition is lame of strength and therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
