1. Incorrect calculation of interest inspite of the findings in favour of the Defendants is the subject matter of this Appeal preferred by the Defendants.

2. There is no dispute that Term Loan and Cash Credit facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Bank on 6.9.89 as per the terms and conditions of the said sanction letter were availed of by the Defendants from time to time. The agreed rate of interest as per the sanction letter appearing on page 76 of the appeal paper book was 15% and 17% respectively.

3. It was alleged by the Bank that the Defendant committed breach of the agreement and did not pay the dues in spite of two demand notices dated 6:2.92 and 13.7.93 respectively. The Bank had therefore filed Suit No. 995/94 on 28.2.94 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad from where it was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993.

4. The Defendant resisted the claim and denied their liability to pay any amount particularly on compliance with the direction issued by the High Court in Sp. Civil Application No. 1517/95 on 29.3.95. By this order the defendants were directed to deposit Rs. 12,50,000/- and invest Rs. 5 lacs under fixed deposit. The Defendants disputed the statement of account filed by the Applicant Bank and contended that the Bank could not charge interest more than the agreed rate.

5. The learned Presiding Officer by his findings in para 17 of his judgment has field :

"I hold that the contractual rates of interest for the facility of term loan of Rs. 7 lacs granted by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants is 15% per annum during the period regular Payment of instalments and 17% per annum on the amount of defaulted instalments for the period till payments of instalments That the contractual rate of interest not the cash credit hypothecation accounts is 17% per annum on the outstanding Balance till payment. On the said finding I further hold that the Plaintiff Bank is not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 21.75% on the suit claim of outstanding balance in the term loan account from the date of suit. Similarly plaintiff bank is also not entitled to claim interest at 21.25% per annum on suit claim for the outstanding balance in the cash credit account from the date of the suit..................."

6. The Applicant Bank had claimed Rs. 7,68,742 (inclusive of interest in the term loan account and Rs. 6,98,237 (inclusive of interest) in cash credit account till the date of filing of the suit on 28.2.94. The learned Presiding Officer had calculated the said amounts at Rs. 7,25,162.34 and Rs. 6,57,882.48. The total claim made by the Applicant Bank was Rs. 14,68,979/- while the Presiding Officer has awarded Rs. 13,83,044.32. He has of course directed the adjustment of Rs. 12,50,000/- paid by the Defendants on 29.3.95 but adjusted by the Bank on 2.6.95. He has also directed the adjustment of fixed deposit amount of Rs. 5 lacs.

The learned Presiding Officer probably has calculated the due on the basis of the statement filed by the Bank. It will be thus seen that the relief granted by the Presiding Officer is to the extent of Rs. 85,935/- (Rs. 14,68,979/- Rs. 13,83,044). By his final order he has directed the Defendants to pay Rs. 4,46,534.97 alongwith future interest at 17.00% per annum on Rs. 1,33,044.32 from 2.6.95 till realisation of the amount.

7. It is this order as well as calculations which are challenged by the Defendants in this Appeal. The dispute is thus restricted to the calculation of interest vis-a-vis the agreed of interest and the applicability of Section 21 (a) of the Banking Regulation Act.

On the basis of the submissions made before me the only point which therefore arises for consideration is whether the Presiding Officer has committed an error or illegality in calculating the due.

8. The findings in para 17 of the judgment (as reproduced above) cannot now be challenged or disputed. Bank has not prefe