Andhra Bank Vs. Inturi Narayana and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Banking |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Sep-25-1997 |
| Appeal No. 1879 of 1985 |
| C.V.N. Sastri, J. |
| 1997(6)ALT392 |
| Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 21A; Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1984 |
| Andhra Bank |
| inturi Narayana and ors. |
| M.R. Reddy, Adv. |
| G. Rama Rao, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 |
| Appeal allowed |
- a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by..........this question elaborately and held that section 21-a of the banking regulation act, 1949 applies to all transactions entered into between the banking company and its debtor whether the transaction was entered into prior to its commencement or after and that section 21-a applies to pending appeals irrespective of the fact whether a decree was passed giving relief to the debtot or not. it was also held that section 21-a makes no distinction between an advance made for agricultural purpose or for commercial purpose and it equally applies to both. it was further held that the provisions of usurious loans act, 1918 (act 10 of 1918) as amended by usurious loans 25 (madras amendment) act 8 of 1936 section 3 and madras agriculturists debt relief act, 1938 (act iv of 1938) were not applicable to the advances made by banks to agriculturists.2. in view of the said full bench judgment the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for. but in the appeal each party to bear its own costs.
C.V.N. Sastri, J.
1. This appeal filed by the Andhra Bank, Plaintiff in the suit, relates to the question of interest only. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court scaled down the interest as per Act IV of 1938 on the ground that the defendants are agriculturists. It is the settled position that after the introduction of Section 21-A in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by amending Act 1 of 1984 Courts have no power to scale down the interest in respect of debts due to Banks. A Full Bench of this Court in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Advath Sakru, 1993 (1) An.W.R. 380 .considered this question elaborately and held that Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies to all transactions entered into between the banking company and its debtor whether the transaction was entered into prior to its commencement or after and that Section 21-A applies to pending appeals irrespective of the fact whether a decree was passed giving relief to the debtot or not. It was also held that Section 21-A makes no distinction between an advance made for agricultural purpose or for commercial purpose and it equally applies to both. It was further held that the provisions of Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (Act 10 of 1918) as amended by Usurious Loans 25 (Madras Amendment) Act 8 of 1936 Section 3 and Madras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1938 (Act IV of 1938) were not applicable to the advances made by banks to agriculturists.
2. In view of the said Full Bench judgment the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for. But in the appeal each party to bear its own costs.