PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant bank seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 10.07.2000 allowing the writ petitioner, and directing that if the writ petitioner deposits a total amount of Rs. 50,000.00 on or before 31.08.2000 then nothing would survive, and bank will not proceed against the writ petitioner any further.

(2.) The matter arises in the circumstances, that the writ petitioner had taken a loan way-back in the year 1988 in the sum of Rs. 66,000.00, and did not make the payments as agreed. According to the writ petitioner, bank moved the application under Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, before the prescribed authority on 09.02.1994. In those proceedings, petitioner's tractor was attached, and was put to auction. Likewise, the petitioner also deposited some amount in cash on 01.04.1998. Since the proceedings continued for recovery of remaining amount, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, raising a grievance, that as per directions of Reserve Bank of India, rate of interest can be charged on agricultural loan at 12.4%, whereas in the present case, interest has been charged at 16.5%. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Corporation Bank's case reported in, 1994(5) SCC 213 to contend that interest cannot be charged with six monthly rests. Inter-alia with this, it was prayed that the proceedings pending before the prescribed authority be quashed, and the respondents be directed not to attach the petitioner's agricultural land, and a direction was sought to charge the interest @ 12.5% per annum. The petitioner also produced the order-sheets of the prescribed authority.

(3.) The bank contested the writ petition, and submitted that despite service of show cause notice by the prescribed authority, the petitioner neither appeared before the prescribed authority, nor submitted any objections despite several notices, as such, the petition is not maintainable. Then reliance was placed on Noida Entrepreneur Association's case, citation of which was not given. Then reliance was placed on provisions of Sec. 21A of the Banking Regulations, 1949 to contend that the powers of the Court are fettered in the matter of reopening the interest claimed by the bank. Factual aspect, about recovery of Rs. 1,20,500.00 was not disputed, but it was contended that as on 31.03.2000, a sum of Rs. 2,22,199.00 was outstanding. Then Corporation Bank's case was sought to be distinguished on factual matrix.