Usurious loan relief upheld where contractual interest and pendente lite reduction were justified on the facts.

Section 3 of the Usurious Loans (Madras Amendment) Act VIII of 1937 permits relief where a loan transaction is substantially unfair, and excessive interest must be assessed in light of the circumstances at the date of the loan, including security, the debtor's financial position, the lender's risk, and the basis for compound interest. Applying that test, the SC accepted the concurrent finding that the security was not inadequate and that the lender's risk did not justify the higher contractual rate. It further held that 10% compound interest with yearly rests was not excessive on the facts, and that reducing interest to 6% from the date of suit was a proper exercise of discretion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduction of contractual interest under section 3 of the Usurious Loans (Madras Amendment) Act VIII of 1937 was justified on the facts, including the rate of interest before suit and the pendente lite reduction.

Analysis: Section 3 empowers the court to grant relief where a transaction is substantially unfair, and excessive interest is judged by reference to the circumstances existing at the date of the loan, including the security, the debtor's financial condition, the risk to the creditor, and the terms on which compound interest is charged. Applying that framework, the Court accepted the concurrent factual assessment that the security was not inadequate and that the creditor's risk was not so abnormal as to justify the higher contractual rate. The Court also agreed that 10 per cent compound interest with yearly rests was not excessive in the circumstances and that the further reduction to 6 per cent from the date of suit was a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The reduction of interest was upheld and the challenge to the scaling down of interest failed.

---