STATE BANK OF INDIA versus YASANGI VENKATESWARA RAO

~"'!' .;--~:

STATE BANK OF INDIA v.

YASANGI VENKATESWARA RAO

JANUARY 21, 1999

[B.N. KIRPAL ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]

Banking Regulation Ac~ 1949:

Section 21-A (as inselted in 1984)-Provided that banking transaction not to be reopened by any cowt on ground that interest rate of such transac- ti on is excessive--Preliminary decree was passed by trial coult in suit for recovery of money and upheld in appeal by District Coult-However,• High Coult allowed second appeal on the ground that S.21-A was ultra vires-Held: S.21-A deals with question of rate of interest. charged by banking company, whether to an agricultwist or non-agricultwist-1herefore, reference to Enfly 30 of List II dealing with relief of agriculture indebtedness is of no conse-quence-Hence, S.21-A is validly enacted and High Coult erred in holding that Parliament has no jurisdiction to enact S.21- A-Constitution of India, 1950, Ans 245 and 246, Sch. VII List I, Ent1y 45 & List II Ent1y 30.

Banking company-Interest-Charging of-Rate of-Mo1tgage-Held :

Rate of interest is matter of contract between the palties-Hence, coult cannot interfere in respect of an agreement stipulating charging of compound interest in respect of the amount advanced against moltgage-:-f.!surious Loans Act, 1918.

The appellant-Bank filed suit for recovery of money against the

respondent before the Trial Court. preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court in favour of the appellant, which was upheld by the District Court.

Mter the decree of the Trial Court Section 21-A was inserted in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which provided that banking transaction was not to be reopened on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction was excessive.

The respondent filed second appeai before the High Court contend~ ing that in view of Section 21-A of the Act there would be no occasion for

[the court to reduce the rate of interest which the borrower ][had ][contracted ]to· pay. While allowing the second appeal, the High Court bad declared Section 21·A or the Act ultra vires. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. There Is no doubt that Section 21-A or the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 deals with the question of the rate or interest which can be charged by banking company. Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule clearly empowers the Parliament to legislate with regard to banking. The enactment of Section 21-A was clearly within the domain of the Parliament. The said Section applies to all types of loans which are granted by banking company, whether to an agriculturist or non· agriculturist, and therefore, reference by the High Court to Entry 30 of List II dealing with agricultural indebtedness was of no con5equence. Hence,· High Court erred in holding that Parliament had no jurisdiction [to enact Section 21·A. (216·8-C] ]

2. Entering into mortgage is matter of contract between the

parties. If the parties agree that In respect of the amount advanced against mortgage, compound Interest will be paid, court cannot interfere and [reduce the amount of interest agreed to ][be ][paid on the loan so taken. The ]mortgaging of property Is with view to secure the loan and bas no relation whatsoever with the quantum of interest to be charged. [216·D·E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4607 of 1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.85 of the Andbra Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 972 of 1984.

K.N. Rawat Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay Kapur, Rajiv Kapur,

[(M.K. Michael} ][(NP} ][for the Appellant. ]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J. The challenge in this appeal is to judgment of the High Court which, while allowmg the appeal filed by the respondent, had [declared Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act as being ][ultra ][vires. ]

......,

... ,...

Briefly stated the facts are that suit for recovery of money was filed by the appellant before the District Munsif, Eluru. The Trial Court passed preliminary decree and the same was substantially upheld by the District Court.

In the second appeal which was filed, one of the contentions which was raised related to the charging of interest by the appellant. After the decree of the Trial Court, by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act 1 of 1984, new Section 21-A was inserted in the Banking Regulation Act. The said Section reads as follows.

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, transaction between 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 trans-action is excessive."

Relying upon this provision, the contention of the appellant was that there would be no oceasion for the court to reduce the rate of interest which the borrower had contracted to pay.

The High Court in the second appeal, even without an issue being framed to this effect, entertained the plea regarding the validity of the said Section and observed as follows :

"Considering the fact that grant of debt relief has always been treated in our country as legislative subject to be passed upon by the regional Governments alone and that the words "Relief of agricultural indebtedness" were specially added by our Constitu-tion to enable the State Legislatures to alleviate the suffering of the farmers from their agricultural indebtedness and that the Constituent Assembly had deliberately rejected an amendment moved seeking to transfer this item to the concurrent list, I hold that Section 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act which forbids the Courts from reopening the bank loans on the ground of excessive interest is not law enacted by the Parliament ".'1th respect to the item of Banking."

The learned Additional Solicitor General contends that the aforesaid

observation of the High Court is not correct. He also submits that the High Court qad erred in observing that "normally where security offered by the debtor, is good and adequate as it is in case of mortgage of property, the Courts will hold charging of compound interest to be excessive."

We are unable to understand as to how the High Court could come to the conclusion that the Parliament had no jurisdiction to enact Section 21-A. There can be no doubt that Section 21-A deals with the question of the rate of interest which can be charged b~ banking company. Entry 45 of List" I of the Seventh Schedule clearly [1]empowers the Parliament to legislate with regard to banking. The enactment of Section 21-A was clearly within the domain of the Parliament. The said Section applies to all types of loans· which are granted by banking company, whether to an agricul-turist or non-agriculturist, and, therefore, reference by the High Court to Entry 30 of List II was of no consequence. In our opinion, the said Section 21-A had been validly enacted.

We also find it difficult to agree with the observation of the High Court that normally when security is offered in the case of mortgage of property, charging of compound interest would be regarded as excessive. Entering into mortgage is matter of contract between the parties. If the parties agree that in respect of the amount advanced against mortgage compound interest will be paid, we fail to understand as to how the court can possibly interfere and reduce the amount of interest agreed to be paid on the loan so taken. The mortgaging of property is with view to secure the loan and has no relation whatsoever with the quantum of interest to be charged.

With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and dec~ee of the High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court restored. No order as to costs.

v.s.s.'

Appeal allowed.