IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 AS.No. 1010 of 1998() --------------------- OS.155/1993 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, AZHAKANTHARA NIZA MANZIL, KUTTAMACHAL, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE CHERTHALA 2. PATHIMA ABDUL SALAM W/O.ABDUL SALAM, AZHAKANTHARA NIZA MANZIL KUTTAMACHAL, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE CHERTHALA BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE THYCATTUSSERY BRANCH THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- AS No.1010 of 1998-B ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August 2011 Judgment The defendants, who suffered a decree at the hands of the trial court, are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. It is an admitted case that the defendants availed of two loans from the plaintiff Bank, one for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and another for Rs.15,000/-. The defendants are alleged to have executed agreements of hypothecation and guarantee in favour of the bank. The defendants defaulted in payment of the loan amounts. Therefore, the suit was laid for realisation of amount with interest. AS 1010/98-B 2 3. The first defendant resisted the suit raising several contentions. The main contention was that the loans were availed of for agricultural purposes and the defendants were entitled to get the benefit of the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme. After the filing of the written statement, the first defendant was allowed to amend the written statement and he filed an amended written statement, assailing the accounts of the plaintiff. He claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to get interest as claimed in the plaint. On the above contentions, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, issues were raised by the court below. Evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A18(a) from the side of the plaintiff. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defendants. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court found that the claim of the defendants that they are entitled to get the benefit of the Agricultural AS 1010/98-B 3 and Rural Debt Relief Scheme cannot be accepted as the transaction was a commercial transaction and it cannot be treated as an agricultural operation. Holding so, the suit was decreed. It is the said judgment and decree that are assailed in this appeal. 6. In this appeal, the only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that future interest granted by the court below is considerably excessive and it was not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel would point out that the loans are covered by the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme and therefore, interest ought to have been levied only @ 10%. 7. Even assuming that the transaction is a commercial one, the court is vested with the right to regulate interest. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the future interest @ 14.5% seems to be highly excessive. AS 1010/98-B 4 In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the future interest of 14.5% is reduced to 10% from the date of suit till realisation. No order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta AS 1010/98-B 5