Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, prohibits courts from reopening transactions between a banking company and its debtor on the ground that the rate of interest charged is excessive.

( 1 ) S. B. SINHA, J.-All these three appeals involving common questions of law were taken up for hearing together. The judgments and decrees dated 10th January, 1994 are impugned in these appeals.

( 2 ) THREE suits were filed by the Appellant being suit No. 306/93, 308/93 and 309/93 for grant of a decree for sum of Rs. 53,10,74,550. 64p. , Rs. 10,37,25,686. 74p. and Rs. 21,36,72,072. 82p. respectively. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we would consider the fact from the record of Appeal No. 306 of 1993. Having regard to the certain purported admissions made by the Loanee an application was filed for passing a decree on admission as contemplated under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the details whereof are : "suit No. Amount claimed Amount

& Cause Title Claimed in the Suit. (1) (2) (3) 306 of 1993 U. B. I. Vs. BTW Industries Ltd.

in judgment upon Admission. 10,61,33,000/- 53,10,74,550. 64 308 of 1993 U. B. I. Vs. BTW Veneers Ltd.

7,79,05,724/- 10,37,25,686. 74 309 of 1993 U. B. I. Vs. 12,50,65,360/- 21,38,72,072. 82" S. S. Industries Ltd.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge rejected the said contention but purported to have accepted the suggestions made by the defendants-respondents. Furthermore it was recorded that the defendants intended to pay the principal amount. The learned trial Judge noticed :-"the respondents have submitted in course of argument and also by filing written notes that they are willing to submit to a decree for Rs. 61,72,05,000/-with such interest as Court may decide and the same may be allowed to be paid by instalments so as to enable the defendant to pay the money. In the plaint of the three suits the plaintiff bank has claimed Rs. 84,86,72,310. 20 with compound interest of 25% per annum. Now it is very difficult to ascertain what is the principal amount in the three suits. "

( 4 ) A suggestion was made that the learned Advocate General who, in the suits as also in these appeals was appearing for the Appellant be made an arbitrator for the purpose of determining the question of interest payable on the principal amount. The said suggestion was not accepted. The learned trial Judge, however, took upon himself the matter and upon taking recourse to certain methods of calculations held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the principal sum of Rs. 77,79,49,617. 68p.

( 5 ) HE, however, in exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 20 Rule 11 thereof directed that the decretal amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% p. a. and the defendant shall pay the principal amount in instalments as laid down therein. By way of example in respect of Suit No. 306/93 it was directed. "the defendant will pay instalment at the rate of Rs. 1. 20 crore per quarter, first of such quarter will be on or before 1. 4. 94 and so by the first day of each succeeding quarter till the entire decretal amount is paid off. The defendant will go on paying the said instalment together with interest on reducing balance. If the defendant fails to pay any two instalments, the plaintiff bank will execute the decretal amount then remaining due and in that event the balance decretal amount will carry interest @ 16. 5% per annum. Mr. Ukil, Special Officer, will continue until the entire payment is made and if the defendants make any default as stipulated therein, the special Officer will take possession of the assets charged. It is further ordered that the defendant company would be at liberty to take financial assistance from any other bank and/or financial institution by creating a second and/or pari passu charge of their assets; but if such financial assistance is taken that will be without prejudice to the Bank's right. So far as the Bank's securities are concerned, the charge upon securities will remain the first charge so far as the plaintiff bank is concerned. Interim orders of injunction already passed as modif