Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the contractual interest at 11% per annum with half-yearly rests was liable to be reduced as excessive or usurious under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, and whether the proviso relating to agriculturists under Section 3(2)(b) applied.
Analysis: The appellants had not pleaded in the written statement that they were agriculturists, and no issue had been framed on that basis. The evidence also did not establish that status with sufficient certainty. The Court further found that no case of substantially unfair or unconscionable bargain had been pleaded or proved. The decision on excessiveness depended on the facts of each case, including the nature and value of security, market rate of interest, and surrounding circumstances. On the record, there was no evidence as to the value of the security or the prevailing market rate, while the lending institution's regulated character and the contract's reference to Reserve Bank of India-linked interest did not make the rate prima facie excessive.
Conclusion: The proviso to Section 3(2)(b) did not apply, and the interest stipulated in the decree was not shown to be usurious or excessive.