SHIVSHANKAR TALKIES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking review the judgment dated 07. 07. 2006 in A. S. No. 114 of 1991.

(2.) SECOND petitioner for and on behalf of the first petitioner, which is a cinema theatre, borrowed money from the first respondent bank for construction of the first petitioner theatre, by depositing their title deeds as security for the amount borrowed and as they failed to discharge the said debt, first respondent filed the suit for recovery of the amount by sale of the hypothica, in which first petitioner filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second respondent, inter alia contending that inasmuch as they are agriculturists within the meaning of Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief act, 1938 (the 1938 Act), they are entitled to benefits of that Act and if not as agriculturists they are entitled to reduction of interest in view of the provisions of the Usurious Loans act, 1918 (the Act ). The trial court accepting the contention of the petitioners, by reducing the rate of interest, found that they need not pay any further amount to the Bank and dismissed the suit filed by the first respondent. Questioning the same, first respondent preferred an appeal to this Court. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court allowed the appeal. Now, this petition is for review the said judgment on the ground that the then counsel for petitioners failed to appear at the time of hearing of the appeal and that this Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the trial court gave cogent reasons for its conclusion that the first respondent is not entitled to the amount claimed in the suit this Court without taking into consideration two important judgments relied on by the trial Court in m. Ramachandra Reddy v. S. Rajaratnam naidu and Union Bank of India, Vijayawada v. J. Mohan Rao and as this Court also failed to take into consideration the fact that the trial court had on the basis that the first respondent failed to produce the account books showing the rate of interest charged etc. , drew an adverse inference against the first respondent and rightly reopened the transaction as the first respondent failed to produce any material with respect to the initial loan transaction, and reversed the judgment of the trial court by judgment dated 07. 07. 2006 allowing the appeal may be reviewed. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that since the grounds of review are in the nature of grounds of appeal, and so, since no ground for review is pointed out in the grounds of appeal, if the petitioners felt aggrieved by the judgment of this court, their remedy is to question the same in appeal, but not by way of a review application, and in any event, since the two decisions relied on by trial court and the counsel forthe petitioners should be deemed to have been impliedly over-ruled by a Full Bench in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Advath Sakru, where it is held that section 21a of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (the 1949 Act) does not make any distinction between an advance made for agricultural purpose or for commercial purpose and prohibits reopening of transaction between the Banking Company and its debtor under the provisions of the Act, there in fact are no grounds for review also.