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

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President
& Mrs. Sushil Paul, Member
UNION BANK OF INDIA—Appellant
versus
DR. AMAR SINGH—Respondent
First Appeal No. 19 of 1996—Decided on 13.2.1997

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate.

Once a loan is advanced with a specific rate of interest stipulated, the bank cannot unilaterally enhance the interest rate thereafter.

Headnote:

Interest Rate - Professional and Self Employed Scheme - Court held that once the loan was advanced with a specific rate of interest stipulated, the bank could not unilaterally enhance the interest rate thereafter.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant, a Medical Practitioner, received a loan from the appellant Bank for the purchase of a car. The Bank later attempted to charge a higher interest rate than initially agreed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Bank could not unilaterally enhance the interest rate after the loan was advanced with a specific rate of interest stipulated.

Issues: Dispute over the interest rate charged by the Bank for a loan under the Professional and Self Employed Scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a loan is advanced with a specific rate of interest stipulated, the bank cannot unilaterally enhance the interest rate thereafter.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— Union Bank of India has come up in appeal against the order dated 8th December, 1995 passed by learned District Forum, Kamal, whereby complaint filed by one Amar Singh, a Medical Practitioner of Karnal has been allowed and the appellant Bank has been directed to charge interest @ 15.5% per annum on the loan advanced to the complainant for the purchase of a Maruti Car, under "Professional and Self Employed Scheme of the Bank." According to the complainant the loan of Rs. 1,20,000/-was sanctioned to him by the Bank on 18th November, 1993 for the purchase of Maruti Car and according to the letter of allotment interest @ 15.5% was to be charged from him. However a couple of months later he received a letter that the policy of the Bank had since been revised and as per the new policy rate of interest chargeable would be 18.5% on the amount of loan. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum and in reply thereto, the Bank pleaded that the rate of interest @ 15.5% had been mentioned by the Bank official concerned by mistake, which was later detected and brought to the notice of the complainant. Learned District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion, that the existing policy circular dated 7th July, 1993 issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding the loans/ advances to certain categories of priority sector lendings was not applicable to the Medical Practitioners and, therefore, the rate of interest i.e. @ 18.5% mentioned in that circular letter was not applicable in the case of Medical Practitioners. Consequently, the complaint was allowed and the Bank was restrained from recovering the interest @ 18.5%.

2. In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for Union Bank of India has vehemently argued, that all loans for purchase of consumer durables were to attract interest @ 18.5% and even if a person had already taken loan at a lesser rate of interest, the rate could be enhanced unilaterally. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel and are of the considered view, that once the loan was advanced to the complainant under an agreement with a specific rate of interest i.e. @ 15.5.% expressly stipulated therein, the same could not be enhanced by the Bank unilaterally thereafter. Obviously, if there was a subsequent change in the rate of interest either by the Bank's own decision or under directions received by them from the Reserve Bank of India or any other higher quarter, the revised rate of interest would apply only to the subsequent transactions and not to the agreements already entered into by the parties. Consequently, we do not find any justification to interfere with the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.



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
whatsapp-icon Back to top