9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit for recovery of loan amount with interest at 13% per annum. 2. Disputed liability to pay interest and validity of suit claim. 3. Determination of issues by trial court. 4. Justification of interest awarded by the court. 5. Entitlement of the bank to recover interest with quarterly rests. 6. Impact of Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 on interest rates charged by banks. 7. Recalculation of interest on the advance given to the appellant. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against a decree and judgment made by the Additional Civil Judge in a suit filed by a bank for the recovery of a loan amount with interest. The defendant had availed loans from the bank against the security of properties and executed promissory notes. The defendant admitted the creation of an equitable mortgage but disputed the interest rate charged by the bank. The trial court framed necessary issues, and witnesses were examined, including the Agricultural Extension Officer of the bank and the defendant himself. The trial court ruled in favor of the bank, upholding the interest charged and decreed the suit for the repayment of the loan amount with interest at 13% per annum. The appellant challenged the interest awarded by the court and the entitlement of the bank to recover interest with quarterly rests. The court found the interest calculation erroneous and adjusted the interest rate from the date of decree. The court also examined the banking practices regarding interest calculations and highlighted the limitations on banks to charge interest with quarterly rests, especially on agricultural advances. The court delved into the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983, which restricted courts from scrutinizing interest rates charged by banks unless it exceeded the limits prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The court emphasized that banks must adhere to the interest rates prescribed by the Reserve Bank and that any deviation from such rates would render the interest charged illegal and void. The appellant's argument regarding the contractual rate of interest was dismissed as the interest rates were subject to escalation based on Reserve Bank regulations. The court partially allowed the appeal, directing the bank to re-calculate the interest on the advance given to the appellant at varied rates without quarterly rests. The modified decree required the bank to adjust the interest rates and provide a memo within a specified period. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the disputed interest rates, the legality of charging interest with quarterly rests, and the impact of banking regulations on interest rates charged by banks. The court's decision provided clarity on the permissible interest rates and the obligations of banks to comply with Reserve Bank regulations.
|
