The terms of the original agreement and the respondent's obligation to pay back the loan at the agreed rate of interest influenced the court's decision to refuse the appellant's claim for reduced interest rate.

( 1 ) THIS Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against order dated 8th April 2006, passed by a learned single Judge by which His Lordship disposed of the writ application without granting the relief claimed therein to the writ petitioner. His Lordship merely directed the respondent to consider the application of the appellant for further financial assistance provided such an appropriate application in proper format is made within two weeks from the date of the order impugned herein.

( 2 ) THE appellant took financial assistance from the respondent-bank for the purpose of her business. The respondent-bank sanctioned a total amount of Rs. 37. 16 lakh on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement for such loan. In the written agreement entered into between the parties, it was specifically provided that the interest on the loan would be charged at the lending rates of the respondent prevailing at the time of first disbursement of the loan. There is no dispute that in terms of such agreement, the rate of interest was fixed that 14. 75% per annum for term loan, 5% service charge per annum for the soft-loan and 14. 75% per annum on W. C. T. L.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the writ petitioner was that although subsequently the rate of interest has been reduced and the respondent-bank was realizing interest at such a reduced rate from other persons who subsequently secured loan, such benefit was not extended to the writ petitioner.

( 4 ) THE writ application was contested by the respondent-bank thereby denying the material allegations made in the application and the specific defence taken by the bank was that it was liable to pay fixed rate of interest on the funds arranged by it from the Small Industries Development Bank of india and from the public and was under obligation to pay back interest thereon and as such, the rate of interest payable by a borrower cannot be reduced for subsequent reduction of interest by the Small Industries development Bank of India. According to the respondent, if the writ petitioner wanted fresh loan on the basis of a new scheme, the existing reduced-rate of interest would be applicable.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge on consideration of the materials on record refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner for a direction upon the bank to accept interest at a reduced rate but merely directed the bank to consider fresh application of the appellant, if applied for, by the appellant.

( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present Mandamus-Appeal.

( 7 ) THE only question that arises for determination in this Mandamus-Appeal is whether the appellant has the legal or fundamental right to pay back the amount taken by way of loan at the subsequent reduced rate of interest prevailing for the time being.

( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going to the materials on record, we find that the parties specifically agreed that the rate of interest should be the one prevailing on the date of first disbursement of loan and such rate of interest was also specified in the agreement. The said agreement did not give any right to any of the parties either to claim interest at a higher rate or to pay interest at a lower rate. Moreover, it is rightly contended by the respondent that it procured money from the Small industries Development Bank of India and from the public at the rate fixed by it at the relevant time and as such, was under the obligation to pay back the said money at the agreed-rate of interest which was not variable. Therefore, the appellant had no legal right to claim that she was entitled to make payment of interest at a reduced-rate which was applicable in the cases of the subsequent new transactions.

( 9 ) THE respondent, therefore, was within its right to claim interest prevailing at the time of the first disbursement of loan-amount and by refusing to accept interes