Honble CHAUHAN, J.–Both these writ petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings and the orders passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for short, ``the Act). Both cases are identical but the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 623/1999 are considered to decide the controversy.

(2). Petitioners grievance is that he had taken the loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 10.6.1994, which had to be paid in half-yearly instalments. Petitioner could not deposit the instalments in time, proceedings have been initiated against him under the provisions of the Act on 1.4.1998. Till today, no final order has been passed. No order of sale of movable/immovable properties has been passed. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the said proceedings for recovery.

(3). Two main grounds have been taken in the petition. Firstly, that in Corporation Bank vs. D.S. Godwda (1), the Honble Supreme Court has held that charging interest above 12.5% is excessive and unfair in case of agricultural loan. Secondly, this Court has already entertained a petition, i.e., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2154/ 1998 and passed some interim order, the Court is bound to pass the similar order for the reason that the Court cannot discriminate among the litigants. Mr. Jain has vehemently argued both the points. There is a complete fallacy in the arguments advanced by Mr. Jain. In Corporation Bank vs. D.S. Godwda and another (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the interest with the periodical rest on bank loan is governed by the terms of Agreement between the bank and the borrower; and secondly, that the bank rate should be in conformity with the direction/Circular/Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time as they are of Statutory nature as having been issued under the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (hereinafter called ``the Act, 1949). In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court was dealing with the Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 14.3.72, 15.10.74, 13.3.76, 17.8.76, 28.2.78 and 15.9.94. It was also held that the condition of recovery of interest on quarterly rest in a case of agricultural loan, was contrary to the conditions laid down in those Circulars. The Honble Supreme Court also considered the provisions of Section 21-A of the Act of 1949, which reads as under:-

``21-A. Rates of interest charged by banking companies not to be subject to scrutiny by Courts. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be reopened by any court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive.

(4). The Court observed that as the validity of the said provisions was not under challenge and the recovery was in contravention of the said Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the recovery of interest at a rate higher than provided in those Circulars, by the bank was not permissible.

(5). The issue had also been considered by the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Harbans Singh (2). wherein it was held that the liability to pay quarterly rest interest was illegal. In Corporation Bank (supra), entire contents of the particular Circular had not been taken into account and, thus, the matter has been referred to the Constitution Bench in Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others (3), as the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue: whether the liability of borrower to pay interest on principal sum includes interest that became merged with the principal sum adjudged or it would be the principal sum as loans.

(6). In Canara Bank vs. P.R.N. Upadhyaya and another (4), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the law laid down in Harbans Singh (supra) was per incuriam and the expression ``ter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document