<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (5) TMI 428 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181893</link>
    <description>Unpaid purchase money under a compromise decree did not become a loan merely because it was made payable partly by instalments with interest and secured by a charge on the property. Relief under the Bengal Money Lenders Act required proof that the parties stood in a borrower-lender relationship and that the debt was, in substance, a loan. As no agreement or factual basis showed conversion of the original sale consideration into a loan, the amount remained unpaid price rather than borrowed money. Section 30 relief was therefore unavailable, and prior authorities were distinguished on the ground that they involved treatment of the original price as a loan or its equivalent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 428 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181893</link>
      <description>Unpaid purchase money under a compromise decree did not become a loan merely because it was made payable partly by instalments with interest and secured by a charge on the property. Relief under the Bengal Money Lenders Act required proof that the parties stood in a borrower-lender relationship and that the debt was, in substance, a loan. As no agreement or factual basis showed conversion of the original sale consideration into a loan, the amount remained unpaid price rather than borrowed money. Section 30 relief was therefore unavailable, and prior authorities were distinguished on the ground that they involved treatment of the original price as a loan or its equivalent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>