Judgment On 13.12.2007 Rule was issued. While staying the operation of the order assailed, this Court directed the revision applicants to deposit the decretal amount, as directed by Co-operative Court dated 16.6.2005 within three months. 2. The revision applicants are husband and wife, have availed financial facilities from the respondent -Bank in the year 1998. Failure to comply the requisitions of terms of loan, estranged the Bank to apply to the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court for recovery of disputed amount of Rs.54,412/-and Rs.54,912/-, respectively. 3. The learned Judge, Co-operative Court, Shrirampur allowed the dispute with costs. However, refused the interest and made it applicable at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.3.2004 till realisation of the amount. This judgment of the learned Judge, Co-operative Court was questioned before the learned Member, Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by the Bank. The learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal partly and modified the order assailed directing the revision applicants/borrowers to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum + 2% towards penal interest with half yearly rest. This was the past interest and also future interest on the same made effective from 1.3.2004. These findings of the learned Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad are assailed by the revision applicants/borrowers. 4. The principal contention of Mr Sapkal, learned Counsel is, the purpose of the loan being for agricultural user, to be more precise agricultural business, Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act will play its vital role and respondent -Bank would not be in a position to assert and state, double the amount released in favour of the revision applicants. In order to stress his point, the learned Counsel has invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the findings of first appellate Court, wherein it was a concession or admission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Bank that the borrowers availed the loan for agricultural business purpose. According to Mr Sapkal, considering the nature of the loan to be agricultural business, with all its force Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act will be applicable. To stress his point, learned Counsel has placed reliance to the judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Nivratti Narayan Bankar Vs. Addarsha Padhegaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., reported in 1994 MhLR-1-477. To stress his point, learned Counsel has placed reliance to the judgment of Division Bench in the matter of Nivratti Narayan Bankar Vs. Addarsha Padhegaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., reported in 1994 MhLR-1-477. He has also placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Ghanshyamdas Madanlal Chaudhary and anr. Vs. Chikhali Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., & Ors., reported in 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 170 . 5. The learned Counsel for the revision applicants has urged to reduce the interest as sought to be applied at the rate of 15% per annum with penal interest of 2% and for that purpose he has placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of C.K. Sasankan v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3171 , D.D.A and others Vs. Joginder S.Monga and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3291 and Rajni Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Malhotra and another, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1322 . 6. These three judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court specify that reduction and concession in computation of interest was based on peculiar facts of the cited cases. The Honourable Lordships considered the nature of the decree, whether it was ex parte, it was summary suit and the delay occasioned on behalf of the borrower. The difficulties faced by the borrower in individual case was also considered. There was no point raised in those judgments about applicability of contractual rate of interest in tune and its impact indicated under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was observed that it is the discretion of the Court, which could be validly applied keeping in tune with the facts of individual case. 7. Learned Counsel for the Bank has criticised conduct of the revision applicants. He has pointed that no evidence is adduced by the revision applicants before the learned Judge, Co-operative Court. The borrowers have accepted the dispute decided on 16.6.2005, as same was not questioned before any Court. The appeal before the Member, Co-operative Appellate Court was only by the borrowers and consequently, in the revision there being limited scope, this Court should not entertain the same on factual matrix or in the absence of any perversity demonstrated. 8. Learned Counsel for the Bank reiterated that from any angle, the loan cannot be branded to be for the purposes of agricultural development. 8. Learned Counsel for the Bank reiterated that from any angle, the loan cannot be branded to be for the purposes of agricultural development. He has flashed before me the loan papers, releasing the loan in question to the revision applicants and also invited my attention to the pleadings to canvass that it was a loan under trustees and securities scheme of the Bank and could not be accelerated to be for either an agricultural development or for business in agriculture. 9. On perusal of the loan papers, which are not in controversy, it is vivid that the loan was not for agricultural purpose, but it was disbursed for the purposes and under the banner of trustees and securities loan, though the borrowers had applied for the purposes of loan for allied activities of agricultural business (Sheti Purak Vyavsai) It is curious, the loan documents do not specify any creation of charge on any immovable property or agricultural property of the borrowers. It was only against security of bonds of Maharashtra Krushna Khore Vikas Mahamandal for amount of Rs.1 lakh. 10. It is pointed and not disputed that Government of Maharashtra had floated a scheme in the year 2008 called as 'Debt Waiver Scheme'. However, the case of the revision applicants could not be considered nor they agitated the same to be within the bracket as waiver, as the loan could not be branded to be an agricultural loan. 11. The pleadings of the parties will have its impact on the transaction. As stated earlier, though the application of the borrowers/ revision applicants seeking a loan for agricultural business activities, it was released and disbursed as is informed, as a loan of Rs. 50,000/-under trustees and securities scheme. In this situation of matter, any concession extended by the learned Counsel of the Bank during the course of submissions, before the first appellate Court, will not either amount to waiver or estoppel or accepting the loan to be for agricultural purposes. To repeat, documents of loan speak for itself and they are not disputed, controverted and its genuineness is confirmed by the borrowers/ revision applicants. 12. A cloak tried to be put to take benefit of interest of flakes, in the fact situation will not be available to be entertained. Import of Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act needs to be looked into in positive direction. 12. A cloak tried to be put to take benefit of interest of flakes, in the fact situation will not be available to be entertained. Import of Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act needs to be looked into in positive direction. Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act has underwent amendments. The earlier effect thereof has been drastically amended in 1986 and again w.e.f. 29.10.2007. Section 44A now provides, "including rehabilitation loan but excluding long-term loan for irrigation or agricultural development purposes or loan exceeding rupees three thousand for nonagricultural or commercial purposes." This exclusion clause for commercial purpose or non-agricultural purposes provided under Section 44-A creates an impediment to the assertions deposed by Mr Sapkal. In this situation of the matter, I do not wish to dwell upon the two reported judgments on applicability of Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 13. The learned Counsel for the Bank has lambasted on the conduct of the revision applicants by inviting my attention to the record. The order of this Court dated 13.12.2007 showed indulgence of depositing the loan amount within three months. However, the revision applicants failed to comply the same in the scale provided and have deposited Rs.7,000/-on 14.3.2008. The record illustrates, between 14.3.2008 till 8.10.2010, the revision applicants did not deposit the amount. They have successfully eluded the obligation cast on them to remit the amount. Indeed, by virtue of conditional orders of this Court dated 13.12.2007 while issuing Rule, nothing survives in favour of revision applicants, as non-adherence to the conditions is a consequential impulse of rejection of revision itself. 14. The above situation of the fact, does not indicate any error on the part of the first appellate Court in modifying the order of the learned Judge, Co-operative Court, to the extent of applicability of interest post decree. 15. A point that now creeps in is, the learned Judge has allowed penal interest of 2% over and above 18% of interest, either past decree or post decree. The learned Counsel for the Bank has placed reliance to Section 96 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. There cannot be a quarrel to the legal preposition indicated therein. However, Section 96 and also Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with a situation of contractual rate of interest. The learned Counsel for the Bank has placed reliance to Section 96 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. There cannot be a quarrel to the legal preposition indicated therein. However, Section 96 and also Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with a situation of contractual rate of interest. It does not specify that penal interest would be within the bracket and within the parameters of contractual rate of interest. Consequently, application of penal interest of 2%, as directed either by the learned Judge, Cooperative Court or the learned Member, Co-operative Appellate Court, will not be within the scope and ambit of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure or will not be taking care of Section 96 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 16. In the result, to this extent, the grievance of revision applicants needs to be attended to. The respondent -Bank will correct its account by reducing 2% penal interest, which it has charged intermittently in the loan account of the revision applicants/borrowers and the Bank shall accordingly communicate the same to the revision applicants. 17. Both the Civil Revision Applications allowed partly. Rule made absolute to the extent above. No costs.