1985 (11) TMI 237 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to charge compound interest.
2. Entitlement of the defendants to repay the loan in five equal annual instalments.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Charge Compound Interest

The primary issue in this case was whether the Bank was entitled to charge compound interest on the agricultural loan provided to the defendants. The trial court held that "for agricultural loans in India, the conception of quarterly rest basis i.e., charging of compound interest does not apply." Consequently, the Bank was directed to submit a revised statement of accounts charging simple interest. The revised sum due was determined to be Rs. 19,851.66, and the court decreed this amount with future interest at 6% payable in two annual instalments.

The appellate court examined whether the Bank was justified in charging interest with half-yearly rests. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) report stated that compounding of interest on current dues on agricultural advances is prohibited, but interest could be compounded when the crop loan becomes overdue. The court referred to several circulars issued by the RBI, which emphasized that interest on current dues should not be compounded and that repayment periods should coincide with the period when the farmer is fluid, i.e., after harvesting and marketing of crops.

The court also reviewed previous decisions, including Bank of India v. Raosaheb Krishnarao and D.S. Gowda v. Corporation Bank, which established that the custom of charging compound interest is not applicable to agricultural loans. The court concluded that "Banks cannot charge compound interest with quarterly rests on agricultural advances."

Issue 2: Entitlement of the Defendants to Repay the Loan in Five Equal Annual Instalments

The defendants requested to repay the loan in five equal annual instalments. The trial court did not explicitly address this request in its final decree but allowed the repayment in two annual instalments. The appellate court did not find any substantial reason to modify this aspect of the trial court's judgment.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. The court reiterated that banks are prohibited from charging compound interest on agricultural loans with quarterly or half-yearly rests, as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India. The court emphasized that agricultural loans should be treated differently from commercial loans due to the unique economic conditions of farmers, who generally have income only once a year from the sale of their crops. The court also refused to grant a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the case did not involve any substantial question of law of general importance.