ICICI HOME FINANCE LTD Vs. MANISH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent No.1 had availed cash credit facility in the name and style of M/s Mahavira Enterprises from Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank at the interest 11.5% p.a. as on 31.3.2008. His case is that he obtained a loan from the petitioner company in order to repay the loan which he had taken from Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank. The complainant/respondent, namely, Mr. Manish Jain submitted an application to the petitioner company, seeking a loan of Rs.24,30,000/-. In the application submitted by him along with his family members Smt. Bimla Devi Jain, Mahavir Parshad Jain and Minakshi Jain as co-applicants, it was stated by the complainant as well as his co-applicants that the said facility was required for the purpose of business. Thus it is evident that the loan was taken by the complainant for business purpose. This is also corroborated from the fact that even the cash credit facility from Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank had been taken by him for his business purposes under the name and style of M/s Mahavira Enterprises.

(2.) As per the sanction letter dated 26.3.2008 issued by the petitioner company, it was to charge interest at IHPLR, as publicly notified from time to time, with a margin of -1%. The IHPLR was at that time 14.75% p.a. and applying a margin of -1%, the applicable rate of interest at the time of disbursal came to 13.75% p.a. Clause 17 of the additional terms and conditions attached in the sanction letter reads as under:-

(3.) The complainant did not service the loan taken from the petitioner company and when proceedings were instituted against the borrowers, he executed a letter dated 24.12.2011 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-