R. S. TRIPATH1, J. , CHAIRPERSON., J. ( 1 ) THE appeal No. R-723/07 has been preferred by U. P. Warehousing Corporation-appellant against the judgment dated 1st September, 2006 passed by the D. R. T. , Lucknow in T. A. No. 164/02 for issuing direction for the recovery of Ks. 1,42,41,799. 66 together with pendente lite and future interest @ 15. 5% per annum with quarterly rest from 18th December, 1997 till the date of realization of entire amount from the defendant. The other appeal Sr. No. 23 of 2007 has not been registered as yet and has been filed by State Government against the same judgment dated 1st September, 2006. As the controversy required to be decided in both these cases, is the same, both these appeals are being taken up together for hearing and disposal. ( 2 ) IN short the history giving rise to these appeals is thaf the respondent Punjab National Bank filed a regular suit No. 158/98 against the present appellant and State of U. P. before the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad (Senior Division), Lucknow for recovery of Rs. 1,42,41,799. 66 together with interest and cost etc. Above suit was transferred to the Tribunal in pursuant to Act of 1993 i. e. RDDBFI Act, 1993 and there the case was numbered as T. A. No. 158/98. Subsequently the above case was transferred to the learned D. R. T. , Lucknow where it was numbered as T. A. No. 164/02. In short the case set up by the bank was that the U. P. Warehousing Corporation was sanctioned and paid a sum of Rs. 90. 00 lacs on 15th July, 1989, Rs. 72. 00 lacs on 7th February, 1990 and Rs. 2. 97 lacs on 12th October, 1990 in accordance with the terms and conditions and rate of interest given in the agreement. State of U. P. stood as guarantor for this loan. It was pleaded by the bank that amount of loan was not liquidated by the aforesaid Corporation and consequently the proceedings for recovery were initiated. State of U. P. has also been impleaded as a defendant and for recovery. State of U. P. has been also held to be liable and for this reason State of U. P. has preferred the other appeal. State of U. P. has also been impleaded as a defendant and for recovery. State of U. P. has been also held to be liable and for this reason State of U. P. has preferred the other appeal. ( 3 ) THE above suit was contested by the defendant-Corporation on the several grounds including the main ground of charging of enhanced rate of interest without any justification and against the guidelines for the rate of interest. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal declared the case for recovery along with interest as claimed by the bank and feeling aggrieved against this judgment, these two appeals have been filed. ( 5 ) IN these appeals the only main point, which has been raised from the side of the appellant-Corporation and State of U. P. , is that the learned D. R. T. has not been able to consider that the enhanced rate of interest as per guidelines of the R. B. I, issued from time to time, was not applicable to the present loan paid to the appellant. It has been pleaded in this appeal from the side of the appellants that the rate of interest as per the terms and agreement was to be calculated @ of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (to be called hereinafter as NABARD in short ). The appellants have also raised plea that the charging of interest more than NABARD rate is illegal and against the terms of agreement. ( 6 ) THE above appeals have been contested by the respondent-bank challenging the points raised from the side of the appellants. According to the respondent-bank the rate of interest charged by the bank in connection with the loan in question from the appellants is in accordance with terms of agreement and is not excessive. ( 7 ) HAVING heard Counsel for the appellants and Counsel for the respondent-bank, this Tribunal has gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Tribunal towards the Annexure No. 1 (Page No. 24) annexed with the memo of appeal to point out that the rate of interest given in this paper is 12. 5% per annum and the loan was granted on 22nd January, 1990. The attention of this Tribunal has also been drawn towards Annexure No. 3 filed with the memo of appeal to show that the amount of Rs. 538. 5% per annum and the loan was granted on 22nd January, 1990. The attention of this Tribunal has also been drawn towards Annexure No. 3 filed with the memo of appeal to show that the amount of Rs. 538. 60 lacs has already been paid by the appellant within a period of four years from the date of disbursement of loan, although the amount was payable within a period of 10 years. At Page No. 40, part of Annexure No. 4, there is a copy of letter dated 29th May, 1995 received from the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank admitting the excess payment on account of charging of interest and agreeing for refund of the amount. From the side of the appellants, the Tribunal has been persuaded to consider the agreement. Annexure 6, available with the memo of appeal to show the terms of agreement, wherein "pay to the bank interest thereon the balance thereof due from time, to time at the rate of 12. 5% per annum or at such other rates as may be notified by the bank to the borrower from time to time with quarterly rests on the 30th day of March, June, September and December in each year and such interest shall be calculated and charged in accordance with the usual practice of the bank", has been provided to give a very clear idea with regard to enhancement of the rate of interest after it is notified by the bank to the borrower from time to time. The paper available as Annexure 11 has also been shown to this Tribunal to impress upon the rate of interest in connection with amounts, if any, advanced through NABARD. Another paper which is Annexure 12 (Pages 132 to 134) also (available with memo of appeal R-723/07) been shown to clarify as to how at all the R. B. I, directive is of 14% and the same will have to be brought down to 12. 5% under certain circumstances. This letter has been issued by NABARD. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant in the instant case the respondent-bank has charged the interest @ 21 or 22% without any notification or information to the borrower for such enhancement of rate of interest although notification has been made compulsory in agreement. 5% under certain circumstances. This letter has been issued by NABARD. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant in the instant case the respondent-bank has charged the interest @ 21 or 22% without any notification or information to the borrower for such enhancement of rate of interest although notification has been made compulsory in agreement. His submission is that the plea of the bank that R. B. I. Guidelines support the enhancement of rate, is not acceptable, when such Guidelines are not applicable in the matters of loans granted to the appellant through NABARD and also because it is not correct to say that no such notification or communication was made to the borrower by the respondent-bank for such enhancement. It is argued from the side of the appellant that the learned D. R. T. has failed to consider the terms of agreement for the loan in question and the interest was to be charged at NABARD rate and not in accordance with the R. B. I. Guidelines. ( 8 ) IN support of above arguments, he had cited Syndicate Bank v. Muthian, (1990) 1 Bank C. L. R. 485. and Syndicate Bank v. R. Rao, II 1994 B. C. 338. a Division Bench case of Honble Karnataka High Court. ( 9 ) AGAINST this, learned Counsel for the bank has argued that the interest charged is very clear in Annexure No. 3 and papers available at pages 31 to 34 filed with the memo of appeal. His submission is that the bank has been empowered as per the terms of the agreement to enhance the rate of interest after informing the borrower about the enhancement. Drawing the attention of this Tribunal towards the agreement which is available as Annexure No. 6 filed with the memo of appeal, it is argued that as per terms of this agreement charging of interest after informing about the enhancement of the interest to the borrower is not unjustified or illegal. Drawing the attention of this Tribunal towards the agreement which is available as Annexure No. 6 filed with the memo of appeal, it is argued that as per terms of this agreement charging of interest after informing about the enhancement of the interest to the borrower is not unjustified or illegal. Learned Counsel for the respondent-bank has specially drawn the attention of this Tribunal to para 16 of the counter filed by the bank and papers such as Annexure No. 5 to Annexure No. 9 with the counter to impress upon that the enhancement of rate of interest has always been communicated to the appellants, therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that he was never informed about the enhanced rate of interest. ( 10 ) IN this very connection, learned Counsel for the respondent-bank has also drawn the attention of this Tribunal towards the statement of accounts Annexure No. 2 filed with the memo of appeal to show that calculation of the amount due is itself clear enough to come to an idea about the rate of interest charged. In this very connection Annexure No. 3 filed with the counter is also shown to this Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant there is a paper (annexure No. 4) with the counter filed by the bank in the form of clarification issued by NABARD at the instance of respondent-bank for the confusion if any going on the mind of the appellants with regard to enhancement of rate of interest and according to him the Annexure No. 4 also gives support to the case of the bank. Learned Counsel for the bank has also taken this Tribunal through papers Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 in support of his arguments. ( 11 ) AFTER considering the above all arguments, this Tribunal is of the opinion that as per the terms of the agreement which is available along with the memo of appeal as Annexure No. 6, it is very clear that the rate of interest could be enhance after notifying the same to the borrower from time to time. It can also not be disputed that the bank has right to act in accordance with guidelines of the R. B. I, on the question of charging of rate of interest on loan. It can also not be disputed that the bank has right to act in accordance with guidelines of the R. B. I, on the question of charging of rate of interest on loan. In the instant case as pleaded from the side of the bank in para No. 16 of the counter and from the documents which are available on the record in the form of statement of accounts as Annexure Nos. 1 to 3 and Annexure Nos. 4 to 9 in the form of various letters issued to the borrower, the enhancement was very clear to the appellants and it was communicated to the appellants through these letters as and when the need arose. Thus, from these materials it cannot be accepted that the bank was not entitled to enhanced rate of interest particularly when the NABARD also clarified the same at the instance of respondent-bank. The rulings cited from the side of the appellants are not attracted in the instant case because in the case of rulings 1990 (1) Bank C. L. R. 485 (supra) the rate of interest was on the basis of promissory note of that case whereas in the instant case there is an agreement. The other ruling II (1994) B. C. 338 (Division Bench) of Karnataka High Court (supra) itself shows that the rate of interest is to be charged as per the terms of contract and in case of increase in interest the information has to be given to the borrower. In the instant case, there is an agreement for enhancement of interest and the enhancement was duly communicated to the borrower through letters on different dates. ( 12 ) THE result of above discussions is that the above two appeals have no force and these deserve dismissal. ORDER ( 13 ) BOTH the appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeals Dismissed. .