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

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

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

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -