Bombay High Court Directs Bank to Disburse Crop Loan to Farmers Without Payment of Interest

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

This current PIL is about the disbursement of crop loans to farmers filed in Bombay High Court by RTI Activist Kishor Tangade. Bombay High Court directed Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank to mobilize loans for farmers without payment of interest.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The Maharashtra government issued an order dated 17.01.2020. The order directed the banks to give crop loans to farmers without payment of interest. This move aimed to supplement the Mahatma Jotirao Phule Shetkari Debt Waiver Scheme. However, the bank failed to follow the order described above and denied crop loans to eligible farmers.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The Petitioner submitted that despite the government order, the bank denied loans to the farmers. This was due to non-payment of interest accrued from 01.10.2019. The sowing season began in June, but due to the unavailability of funds, the farmers have not been able to sow seeds. Furthermore, the Petitioner stated that 49.62% of eligible farmers received a loan. This was only due to payment of interest accrued for which many farmers had to sell their valuables.

The Petitioner contended that the government issued the order by exercising its powers. This order was issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Consequently, it led to the binding obligation of the government order on the bank.

Respondent’s Submissions

The counsel representing the government agrees with the contentions raised by the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the government has transferred the amount of loan waiver to the bank. The counsel for the bank states the reason for denying of crop loans by the bank without payment of interest. Here, they stated that denying loans was due to the financial situation of the bank.

The bank fears that it might lose out on the interest amount if loans are disbursed before payment of the interest. Counsel also expressed the intention of the bank to challenge the order issued by the government.

Court’s Observations

The Court stated that the choice to challenge the government order is the right of the bank. The order passed by the government was in the exercise of its powers under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Thus, the bank was bound by the government order, whether it chose to challenge it or not.

Court’s Decision

The Court observed that the order passed by the government was in the exercise of its powers. Additionally, the sowing season is in full swing, and hence, time is of the essence.

The Bombay High Court issued notifications to the Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank. This directed the bank to disburse the loan funds without payment of interest. The Court highlighted that the question of whether the bank could recover accrued interest could be decided at a later stage.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -