SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(AP) 379

N.D.PATNAIK
Bank of Madhura Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Maddi Venkata Subrahmanyam – Respondent


N. D. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 312/84 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money from the defendants under an equitable mortgage claiming interest at the contract rate and costs. The contract rate is 9. 5 per cent over and above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 18. 5 per cent with quarterly rests. The defendants contended that the rate of interest is penal and usurious. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the rate of interest is penal and usurious and reduced it to 12 1/2 per cent per annum simple interest and passed a preliminary decree granting four months time for redemption. The plaintiff filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court reducing the rate of interest.

( 3 ) IN this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that subsequent to the insertion of Sec. 21-A of the Banking Regulation act, 1949, it is not permissible for the court to reopen the interest and reduce it. Sec. 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act reads as follows :"notwithstanding anything contained in the Usurious Loans act








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top