M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Canara Bank wherein a modification is sought in the final decree that has been passed by the trial Court. The respondents have appeared pursuant to notice having been issued to them. ( 2 ) THE first contention raised by the appellant's learned advocate and about which there cannot be much dispute is that there is an error in the concluding part of the judgement as also in the operative part of the order. The principal amount borrowed in this case was Rs. 3,00,000/- and admittedly, the respondents did not repay any amount to the bank. The suit was, therefore, filed claiming an amount of Rs. 4,00,190. 39 ps. along with current and future interest. While decreeing the suit, the learned Judge has awarded interest would be on the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- namely the original principal and not the principal plus interest namely the amount claimed by the plaintiff when the suit was instituted. The appellant's learned advocate drew my attention to relevant provision of law and to certain decisions in support of his contention that this was erroneous that the learned trial Judge ought to have held that the interest would run on the amount as set out in the plaint and not on the original principal. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents sought to dispute this position because he seriously assails the computation of interest and, therefore, he contended that interest should not be awarded on the higher amount. There is however no valid ground to uphold the objections and the decree will have to be corrected to the extent that the interest would be calculated on the amount of Rupees 4,00,190. 39 ps. ( 3 ) APPELLANT's learned advocate thereafter submitted that Bank's case was that even though the original rate of interest started at 16. 5%, that the loan agreement specified that the same would be a floating rate of interest which would depend on the rate approved by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. He relies on the evidence that has been adduced in support of the contention that the rate of interest had arisen and that when the suit was filed, the interest was 25. 5% as per the R. B. I. approved rate. He relies on the evidence that has been adduced in support of the contention that the rate of interest had arisen and that when the suit was filed, the interest was 25. 5% as per the R. B. I. approved rate. He, therefore, submitted that the interest has wrongly been calculated at 16. 5% in the order and that it should read 25. 5%. He has relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in ILR 1993 Kant 2035, in the case of Vijaya Bank v. Bhathija. It is well settled law that where a party has contracted to pay a particular rate of interest and where that contract prescribes that the rate of interest shall be in keeping with the R. B. I. approved rate, that such a rate will apply to the contract provided the bank has intimated the same to the borrower. Appellant's learned advocate relies on the evidence in support of the fact that the borrower was so informed and he, therefore, submits that the order requires modification. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS' learned advocate has advanced certain submissions which I shall briefly deal with. In the first instance, he submits that the bank had allowed his client to avail of an overdraft facility which was valid until December 1991 and that this came to be curtailed in the month of August that year. He, therefore, submits that this action on the part of the bank was responsible for putting the respondents into difficulties and, therefore, it was precluded from claiming the prescribed rate of interest. As far as this argument is concerned, I need to only observe that there is no cogent evidence before the Court to support the submission that it was the bank which was responsible for the condition pleaded by the respondents. To my mind, this is merely a cover up for the non-payment of the loan. ( 5 ) THE mere substantial argument that is canvassed by the respondent's learned counsel centres around the justification for the charging of the higher rate. He has relied on a decision of this Court reported in ILR 1993 Kant 2035, which has already been referred to by me. Wherein, the Division Bench of this Court did have occasion to observe that in a given set of facts, it is within the discretion of the Court to award a lower rate of interest. He has relied on a decision of this Court reported in ILR 1993 Kant 2035, which has already been referred to by me. Wherein, the Division Bench of this Court did have occasion to observe that in a given set of facts, it is within the discretion of the Court to award a lower rate of interest. One such a situation that is illustrated is where a genuine effort has been made to repay and where by insisting on the contractual rate, the borrower would be completely ruined. Undoubtedly, such a discretion does vest in appropriate cases but it is very necessary for the defendant to place sufficient material before the Court in support of the plea that there is valid justification for the reduction in the rate of interest. A scrutiny of the material placed before this Court in this case falls short of that requirement. ( 6 ) LASTLY, respondents' learned advocate has submitted that the record does not justify the charging of interest at the rate of 25. 5%. He relies on the notes of evidence wherein the manager of the plaintiff-Bank had deposed that the higher escalation in the rate of interest was intimated to the borrower from time to time and has produced certain documents on which according to him the endorsement of the borrower was obtained. Learned advocate draws my attention to the cross-examination wherein the witness has admitted that he was not the then manager and that he could not therefore identify the signature of the person who has signed the office copy of the intimation. To my mind, though the defendant has sought to contend that he had never agreed to the higher rate of interest, the position that emerges is that the Bank had complied with its obligation to intimate the borrower of the higher rate of interest and merely because PW 1 who admittedly was an officer who has come into the picture much later could not identify the signature would not justify the position that the borrower was not informed. In the decision reported in ILR 1994 Kant 1129, in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Veeranna, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that the higher rate of interest even if sanctioned by the R. B. I. cannot be charged unless the borrower had intimation of the same. In the decision reported in ILR 1994 Kant 1129, in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Veeranna, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that the higher rate of interest even if sanctioned by the R. B. I. cannot be charged unless the borrower had intimation of the same. Relying on this decision, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the borrower was intimated about the higher rate of interest and in any event on his sworn testimony is before the Court that he had never agreed to the higher rate of interest and consequently that this should not be awarded. As regards this aspect of the matter, the requirement of law is that the higher rate should be intimated. The fact that the Bank has produced the office copies of the intimation is sufficient for this Court to come to the conclusion that in the normal course of business the communication was sent to the defendants. The communication has gone on the correct address and there is a signature on the office copy and that evidence to my mind is sufficient to hold that the change in the rate of interest was communicated. The niceties with regard to the identification of the person who has in fact signed the intimation or sent it are baseless and hollow and therefore merely because the defendant chooses to deny his liability, the Court will not refuse to award the higher rate of interest which the law entitles the Bank to charge. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position, the appeal succeeds. The decree passed by the trial Court shall stand modified to the extent that the Bank shall be entitled to charge interest computed at the rate of 25. 5% on the amount of Rs. 4,00,190. 39ps. Subject to this modification, the decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) THE appellant's learned advocate has submitted that a financial institution has been forced to institute legal proceedings as a result of the defaults on the part of the borrower and that consequently costs should be awarded. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) THE appellant's learned advocate has submitted that a financial institution has been forced to institute legal proceedings as a result of the defaults on the part of the borrower and that consequently costs should be awarded. To my mind, having regard to the position in which the defendant has been placed and the abnormally high rate of interest that the Bank has charged and recovered merely because the law entitles them to do it, will not under any circumstances mitigate in their favour. Hence, in my considered view, no costs shall be awarded as far as the bank is concerned. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .