( 1 ) SECOND Appeal Nos. 812 of 1987 and 832/87 were disposed of by our learned brother PA Choudary 4,, by judgment dated 29-6-1988 reported in Indian Bank represented by its Regional Manager, Palkole vs. Datla venkata Chinna Krishnam Raju (1) 1988 (2) aplj. 55 = 1988 (2) ALT 148. He issued notice to the Advocate General on the question of constitutional validity of Section 4 (e) of the agricultural Debt Relief Act in its inter action with the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and usurious Loans Act, 1918. He dismissed the appeals holding that:". . . . . . . . . . SECTION 4 (e) of the Rajaji Act to the extent it exempts loans advanced by the banks to the agriculturists from the operation of Rajaji Act is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution that the Court was bound notwithstanding Act 1 of 1984 to deny the Bank its help for recovery of compound interest from the agriculturists and that the operation of Rajaji Act is not in any way interdicted by Act 1 of 1984. " he also held that the above Act was fully operative after Central Act 1 of 1984 and that the Usurious Loans Act also operates even after commencement of Act 1 of 1984 in relation to debts incurred, pri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document