<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (6) TMI 217 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197574</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:49:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 217 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197574</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>