T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the appellants before this Court. The money suit filed by the Plaintiff Bank has been decreed by both the Courts below. Hence this appeal. ( 2 ) THE only contention raised before me is regarding the interest. The objection of the counsel for appellant is that the Court below have failed to consider the decisions reported in Krishna Reddy H. P. v. Canara Bank, 1985 0 Kant 1277 : (AIR 1985 Kant 228) and ILR 1985 Kant 4282 : (AIR 1986 Kant 242); Bank of India v. Karan Ramjee Rao, ILR 1985 Kant 1277 : (AIR 1985 Kant 228) is to the following effect :"the Courts, in other words, cannot exercise jurisdiction under the Usurious Loans Act or any other law relating to indebtedness for the purpose of giving relief to any party. This appears to be the intent of the legislature in enacting the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983. Section 21a has, however, no hearing on the jurisdiction of Courts to give relief to an aggrieved party when it is established that the Bank in a particular case has charged interest in excess of the limit prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank has enormous power to control advances to be made by Commercial Banks. The Reserve Bank has power to prescribe or regulate the interest rate structure on advances or other financial accommodation to be made by Commercial Banks. Section 46 (4) of the Banking Regulation Act confers power on the Reserve Bank to impose penalty for contravention of its order, rule or direction. The interest charged by Banks on transactions should therefore be in conformity with the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank. Banks are bound to follow the direction or circular issued by the Reserve Bank in that behalf. If, in any case, it is proved that the Bank has charged interest in violation of the direction of the Reserve Bank, the Court could give relief to the aggrieved party notwithstanding Section 21a of the Banking Regulation Act. The interest charged beyond the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank would be illegal and void. The claim of the Bank on quarterly rests on agricultural loans cannot be allowed. The interest charged beyond the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank would be illegal and void. The claim of the Bank on quarterly rests on agricultural loans cannot be allowed. "ilr 1985 Kant 4282 : (AIR 1986 Kant 242) is to the following effect :"the circulars/directives of the Reserve Bank direct that agricultural advances should not be treated on par with the commercial loans in the matter of application of the system of compounding interest. The farmers do not have any regular source of income other than sale proceeds of their crops is an acknowledged fact. They get income generally only once a year. They are, therefore, not in a position to pay interest at usual fixed intervals like monthly, quarterly and half yearly. Banks should not compound interest on current dues. Banks should not also charge interest with monthly, quarterly or half yearly rests on overdue loans. Perhaps, it may not be illegal to charge interest with yearly rests. "but these two decisions will apply to the case only if the loan is an agricultural advance. Distinction has to be drawn between the purpose of the loan and the person who receives the loan. The person who receives the loan may be a agriculturist but he may use the loan for a commercial purpose. As in this case, it is seen that the defendant has used the loan given to him by the Bank for plying buses. Any employee in any other institution may obtain agricultural loan. In that event then such agricultural loan shall not be treated as a commercial loan and interest has to be charged only as the agricultural loan. It is the purpose that is important and not the person who borrows the money that is important. It is seen in this case that the Courts below have found the loan as having been not given for agricultural purpose. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants argued that it must be treated as agricultural loan and interest must be reduced as applicable to agricultural advances. ( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed on the declaration given by the defendants in the loan applicable form describing his profession as agriculture. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants argued that it must be treated as agricultural loan and interest must be reduced as applicable to agricultural advances. ( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed on the declaration given by the defendants in the loan applicable form describing his profession as agriculture. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that it is not agricultural advance and also in the absence of any material to show that it was an agricultural loan the appellants cannot claim for such a concession. This appeal was confined only to the question of interest. The lower Court has granted interest at the rate of 12. 5% instead of 15%. The first appellate Court has confirmed such interest. It cannot be contended even such interest is illegal or not warranted by the loan documents or the contract between the parties. In fact concession has been given by the Courts below by reducing the interest from 15% to 12. 5% and it is fair and reasonable. ( 5 ) THEREFORE the second appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the Courts below. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .