Bank Of India vs Karnam Ranga Rao And Ors. on 27 November, 1985
But the High Court ultimately decided in favour of the borrower because in its view the agreement did not provide for periodical rests nor did it stipulate for payment of compound interest, making the above quoted observations obiter dicta. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere as the decision does not ultimately rest on the aforequoted view based on the Karnataka High Court decision. We may incidentally say that we have today by a separate judgment dismissed the Bank's appeal against the said decision. We dismiss this petition on the short ground that the agreement on which the Bank's claim is founded does not provide for payment of compound interest or interest with periodical rests.