Harjit Singh vs Union Of India (Mohan, J.) on 17 December, 1994
25. A perusal of all the pleadings and the evidence on record reveals that
the Defendants who were riot affected persons repeatedly approached the
Plaintiff for payment of interest @ 1% per annum. Their conduct clearly
shows that they have paid all the instalments and were only seeking
remission of the interest amount. The Plaintiff ought to have considered
their case sympathetically owing to the various circulars of the RBI as also
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harjit Singh (supra) read with the
Revised Scheme of 1993. The 1984 riots where the Defendants lost their
entire factory was sufficient reason for a Government Organisation to have
lent a helping hand to the borrowers rather than involving them in this
protracted litigation. The riots took place in November 1984 and the hire-
purchase agreement was made in 1985. Almost 33 years have passed since
the event and the letters on record show that there has been no mala fides on
behalf of the Defendants. On the other hand the Plaintiff has failed to reply
to the repeated representations of the Defendants and even the witness who
has appeared claims complete ignorance of these representations.