RBI interest directives bind banks: compound interest on agricultural loans is barred, while non-agricultural lending may follow prescribed rests.

RBI interest directives bind banks on both the rate and structure of loan interest, and they distinguish agricultural from non-agricultural advances. For agricultural loans, interest could not be compounded with periodic rests except on overdue amounts, so compound interest at quarterly or half-yearly rests was impermissible. For non-agricultural advances, periodic rests were allowed within the RBI-prescribed framework, and a rate fixed in public interest could amount to a special circumstance under usurious loans legislation. Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act barred reopening a banking transaction merely for alleged excessiveness, but it did not protect interest charged in breach of binding RBI directives.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether banks could charge compound interest or interest with periodical rests on loans and advances, and whether the Reserve Bank of India directives governed the permissible structure of interest. (ii) Whether, in the light of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Mysore Usurious Loans Act, 1923, a court could reopen a banking transaction on the ground that the interest charged was excessive or substantially unfair, and whether RBI directives constituted special circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether banks could charge compound interest or interest with periodical rests on loans and advances, and whether the Reserve Bank of India directives governed the permissible structure of interest.

Analysis: The circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India drew a clear distinction between agricultural advances and non-agricultural advances. For agricultural loans, repayment and interest collection had to coincide with the farmer's period of liquidity, current dues were not to be compounded, and compounding was permissible only when overdue amounts arose. For non-agricultural advances, the circulars permitted interest with quarterly or longer rests and fixed the applicable ceilings. The banking practice of debiting accrued interest at regular intervals was recognised, but it had to yield to the governing RBI directives where those directives specifically regulated the field.

Conclusion: Banks could not charge compound interest with quarterly or half-yearly rests on agricultural advances, but they could do so on non-agricultural advances within the RBI-prescribed structure. The RBI directives were binding.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the light of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Mysore Usurious Loans Act, 1923, a court could reopen a banking transaction on the ground that the interest charged was excessive or substantially unfair, and whether RBI directives constituted special circumstances.

Analysis: Section 21A barred reopening of banking transactions merely because the rate of interest was alleged to be excessive. At the same time, where a bank charged interest in violation of binding RBI directives, the excess could still be disallowed because the directives had statutory force. Under the Mysore Act, a transaction could be reopened if it was substantially unfair, but a rate of interest fixed by the RBI in public interest, including the maximum rate and the rest structure, was not excessive on that basis alone and amounted to a special circumstance rebutting the presumption of unfairness. On the facts of the secured non-agricultural loan, the rate of 16.5% with quarterly rests was upheld.

Conclusion: Section 21A prevented reopening on the ground of mere excessiveness, but not where RBI directives were breached. The RBI-prescribed rate and structure constituted special circumstances under the Mysore Act, and the challenge to the non-agricultural loan interest failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of on a mixed basis: the challenge to compound interest on agricultural advances succeeded, while the challenge to the secured non-agricultural loan interest failed. The Court restored the decree in one matter with modification and affirmed dismissal in the other.

Ratio Decidendi: RBI directives issued under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 governing the rate and manner of charging interest on bank loans are binding on banks, and Section 21A does not prevent courts from disallowing interest charged in violation of those directives; however, a rate fixed by the RBI in public interest may itself constitute a special circumstance defeating a claim of substantial unfairness under usurious loans legislation.

---