1985 (9) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....B.K. Seshu, Adv. JUDGMENT P. Kodanda Ramaiah, J. 1. This appeal was referred to a Division Bench by Madhava Reddy , J., (as he then was) on 17-4-1980 on the question whether the loan contracted by the appellant-defendant from the plaintiff bank - Syndicate Bank carrying an interest of 121/1% p.a. and 21% p.a. in case of default by itself could be deemed to be excessive and usurious so as to att....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns any fixed deposit amount cannot be adjusted towards the debt due. When admittedly there was no such agreement between the parties and no such instructions were given by the 1st defendant there is no merit in this contention was rejected. The second contention raised before the learned Judge is that the interest at the rate of 21% p.a. claimed by the plaintiff-bank in the event of default in rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection (2) of S. 3 of the said Act which states Provided that in the case of loans to agriculturists, if compound interest is charged, the Court shall presume that the interest is excessive". As per S. 3 of the usurious Loans Act, the Court is empowered to accord relief if the interest is found to be excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair. Sub sec. (2) of the said section gave....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicability of the said Act to the present debt is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not doubt true that one of us (Kodanadaramayya, J.) held that the debts due to bank from agriculturists are not excluded from the purview of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act 5 of 1938 by virtue of S. 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act. But it is admitted before us and also before the....