Judgment :- A. RAMAMURTHI, J. For the The application filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and their men from bringing the property for public auction under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act till the disposal of the suit. The case in brief is as follows : The first plaintiff is a partnership firm consisting of other partners. They purchased the suit property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint by virtue of sale deed dated January 25, 1980. They have engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel household appliances. The respondent is a nidhi within the meaning of section 620A of the Companies Act and carrying on business in advancing loans on security of movable properties and jewels. The applicants approached the respondent for financial assistance to get a loan of Rs. 5 crores by the application dated February 5, 1996. The respondent agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 4 crores as loan in order to discharge the earlier loan to M/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, Calcutta, amounting to Rs. 2 crores and the balance for the development of the land belonging to them situated at Mount Road, Chennai. The respondent sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000 in order to enable the applicants to discharge the earlier mortgage loan with M/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited. The applicants executed a simple mortgage deed dated July 4, 1996, for the loan amount of Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000. Later, the loan to M/s. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited was also discharged. The document of title relating to the property was secured and handed over to the respondent. The mortgage deed dated July 4, 1996, was in the printed form, in which the blanks were filled up.Clause 6(1) of the mortgage deed provides that the mortgagors shall pay an interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000 at the rate of 22.2 per cent. per annum every month besides a sum of Rs. 1, 80, 000 per month for 60 months in recurring deposit account. Clause 6(2) provides that the petitioners should pay that recurring deposit amount and interest on the last working day of every month. 1, 80, 00, 000 at the rate of 22.2 per cent. per annum every month besides a sum of Rs. 1, 80, 000 per month for 60 months in recurring deposit account. Clause 6(2) provides that the petitioners should pay that recurring deposit amount and interest on the last working day of every month. Clause 6(3) lays down that if the mortgagors commit any default in the payment of the interest or recurring deposit or both on or before the last working day of every month, the amount due on the last working day, shall be treated as arrears and the mortgagors shall pay interest on such arrears at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum. Clause 7(1) provides that if the recurring deposit amount and interest payable every month shall be allowed to fall into arrears of three months or more, the mortgagee shall have the right to call in the principal amount and the arrears. The value of the property mortgaged is worth more than Rs. 8 crores. The respondent later failed to sanction a further loan of Rs. 2 crores. The petitioners disclosed that they should not be compelled to comply with the requirement of clause 6 of the mortgage deed. Since the respondent did not comply with the understanding of sanctioning further loan, they did not contribute to the recurring deposit. The provision in clause 6 of the mortgage deed is arbitrary and opposed to public policy. The other clause, viz., clause 6(3) is also violative of section 23 of the Contract Act and opposed to public policy. Whenever amounts were paid, the respondent has been crediting it firstly towards the default interest, then towards tax on interest. The action of the respondent is plainly opposed to the spirit of the mortgage loan. The respondents are entitled to collect interest accrued on the principal amount. The respondents are also collecting some amount under the head of interest-tax, for which they are not entitled and no specific provision is also included in the document. The extension of the terms of recurring deposit without the consent of the petitioner is illegal and not binding on them. The respondent has to give due credit to the amount towards the interest and balance. The amount paid under recurring deposit has to be adjusted towards the principal amount and other payments made subsequently must be credited towards the interest. The respondent has to give due credit to the amount towards the interest and balance. The amount paid under recurring deposit has to be adjusted towards the principal amount and other payments made subsequently must be credited towards the interest. The respondent issued a notice dated December 6, 1999, demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 1, 28, 00, 000 odd as outstanding excluding the principal. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent failed to furnish the detailed statement of accounts. There is a genuine legal dispute existing between the parties and under the circumstance, the respondent cannot invoke section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and bring the property in public auction and to sell the same without the intervention of the court. The applicants can repay the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of M/s. Peerless General Finance and Investments Company Limited and they collected interest at the rate of 21 per cent. per annum. Hence, the application.The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit, denying the various allegations. The third applicant submitted an application seeking a loan of Rs. 5 crores on February 5, 1996. Even in the application, it is stated that the suit property belonged to the first applicant and the same has been offered as a collateral security. The loan was needed to repay the existing dues to another company and also to complete the pending transaction of six grounds in Mount Road to be acquired by the first applicant. This respondent after complying with the formalities, sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000 and all the partners executed a simple mortgage deed on July 4, 1996. Clause 5 of the mortgage deed specifically mentioned about the distribution of the amount. Clause 6 relates to the contribution to the recurring deposit account. In the event of the default by the mortgagors, the arrears shall carry interest at 24 per cent. per annum. Under clause 7, the respondent has been conferred the right to recall the principal then due and the arrears. According to clause 7(iii), in the event of failure on the part of the mortgagors to pay the principal and accrued interest within three months, the right provided under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act can be invoked. The respondent never agreed to sanction a further loan of Rs. 2 crores. According to clause 7(iii), in the event of failure on the part of the mortgagors to pay the principal and accrued interest within three months, the right provided under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act can be invoked. The respondent never agreed to sanction a further loan of Rs. 2 crores. The respondent is not aware of the exact value of the property. The allegation that the applicants appended their signatures in the printed mortgage documents, that too by a partnership firm having turnover in crores does not reflect the integrity. As per the accounts, the applicants are due to the respondent as on June 1, 2000, a sum of Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000 towards principal, Rs. 3, 24, 480 towards default interest, Rs. 68, 40, 882.15 towards interest balance, and Rs. 88, 523.40 towards interest-tax balance.After execution of the mortgage deed, the applicants are not entitled to turn round and say that the clauses contained in the document are violative of section 23 of the Contract Act. These clauses are not opposed to public policy. The applicants are liable to pay interest-tax also. The applicants sought for a statement of accounts in May, 1999, and as required by them, the statement of accounts was also furnished. During 1999, the applicants were trying to get a loan by way of second mortgage of the suit property from Indian Bank. This respondent has sent letters to the Indian Bank that the advance will not exceed Rs. 2, 50, 00, 000. On the basis of the confirmation by this respondent, the applicants have created an equitable mortgage by deposit of certified copy of the title deeds of the same property in Indian Bank. There is no balance of convenience in favour of the applicants and they have not made out a prima facie case. If the order of injunction is granted in favour of the applicants, the respondent will be put to much loss and hardship. The respondent is in a predicament in the face of heavy demands from the depositors, who claim repayment even prior to its maturity. The rights provided under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act is a statutory one and available to them. The applicants, who are due to the respondent in several crores, are not entitled to equitable relief. The respondent is in a predicament in the face of heavy demands from the depositors, who claim repayment even prior to its maturity. The rights provided under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act is a statutory one and available to them. The applicants, who are due to the respondent in several crores, are not entitled to equitable relief. The applicants are also not making any payments in view of the interim order passed by this court and unless the order is vacated, the respondent will be put to much loss and hardship. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the applicants have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour ? and (2) To what relief ?Points : The applicants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction that clauses 6 and 7(i) of the mortgage deed with respect to the collection of recurring deposit as call money and levying an interest at 24 per cent. on the default recurring deposit amount are unlawful, illegal, void and opposed to public policy and to close the recurring deposit account and to credit the amount lying thereon to the mortgage account and to grant mandatory injunction directing the respondent to give credit to the total amount collected properly and to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondent and their men from bringing the suit property for auction sale under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The applicants also filed O.A. No. 65 of 2000 claiming the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondent from bringing the property for public auction under section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned senior counsel for the applicants brought to the notice of the court clauses 6 and 7(i) of the mortgage deed and contended that these clauses are opposed to public policy and violative of section 23 of the Contract Act. Learned senior counsel further stated that according to one of the clauses, the applicants have to pay recurring deposit at the rate of Rs. 1, 80, 000 per month for a period of 60 months and if there is any default, for which also interest has to be calculated. Admittedly, the applicants have remitted only four instalments under the recurring deposit account and thereafter, committed default. 1, 80, 000 per month for a period of 60 months and if there is any default, for which also interest has to be calculated. Admittedly, the applicants have remitted only four instalments under the recurring deposit account and thereafter, committed default. The payments made by the applicants have been clearly furnished by the parties concerned. In fact, even in the counter statement, it is specifically mentioned that as on June 1, 2000, the principal amount of Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000 is still due and payable. Even assuming for argument's sake that the deposit under the recurring deposit account as well as the claim of interest for the default are opposed to public policy, yet the principal amount has to be paid by the applicants. They cannot take shelter on the ground that some of the clauses in the mortgage deed are opposed to public policy or violative of section 23 of the Contract Act. It is necessary to state that the first applicant-company is a registered partnership and the other applicants are partners. They are also educated persons knowing fully well they have signed in the mortgage deed as early as July 4, 1996, and after a period of four years, they have come forward with a stand as if some of the clauses are opposed to public policy. In my view, the present stand has been taken by the applicants only to delay the payments of the dues to the respondent-company.It is necessary to state that the respondent-company is a nidhi within the meaning of section 620A of the Companies Act and they have also collected deposits from various persons. They are also liable to pay interest to the deposit holders on the maturity date, as otherwise they will land in trouble. With this being the position, if debtors like the applicants take this type of stand and attempt to delay the payment of the dues, then virtually it will have a chain reaction and the unfortunate deposit holders in the company may not be able to realise either interest or principal and they will be put to much loss and hardship. In public interest also, the debtors should be directed to pay at least the principal amount and the other conflicting claims can be considered in the course of trial. In public interest also, the debtors should be directed to pay at least the principal amount and the other conflicting claims can be considered in the course of trial. It is clear from the affidavit that the applicants are not interested in payment of the principal amount also and in the name of some of the clauses in the mortgage deed, the applicants are attempting to evade payment and thereby prevent the respondent from bringing the property to auction by invoking section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. Nowhere the applicants have denied the liability to pay the principal amount. Even assuming that the four instalments paid by the applicants towards the recurring deposit account is taken to the credit, yet more than Rs. 1, 80, 00, 000 is payable by the applicants. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the applicants have no prima facie case and on the ground the balance of convenience is only in favour of the respondent. When the applicants have failed to pay the instalments on the due dates, they are not entitled to get discretionary relief of interim injunction and, as such, they cannot claim the same as a matter of right. At the same time, in order to give an opportunity to the applicants, I am of the view that a conditional order can be passed, directing the applicants to pay a particular amount within a reasonable period, failing which, it is open to the respondent to invoke section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and bring the property for sale.For the reasons stated above, interim injunction is granted for a period of six weeks on condition that the applicants deposit a sum of Rs. 90, 00, 000 (rupees ninety lakhs only) representing 50 per cent. of the principal amount due as on June 1, 2000, within a period of six weeks from this date, failing which, the order of interim injunction shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent is empowered to invoke section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and bring the property to auction to realise the dues.