<?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>1934 (10) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197140</link>
    <description>The note explains that a mortgage amount recited as having been applied to discharge the borrower&#039;s mother&#039;s debt was upheld, because the borrower did not effectively dispute the arrangement and the later accounts removed the basis of objection. It also states that, under the Usurious Loans Act, a court may vary compound interest where the bargain is substantially unfair, taking account of risk, security and the circumstances of the loan. On that approach, six-monthly rests at a very high rate were modified to compound interest at 18 per cent per annum with annual rests, while the principal liability was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:31:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1934 (10) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197140</link>
      <description>The note explains that a mortgage amount recited as having been applied to discharge the borrower&#039;s mother&#039;s debt was upheld, because the borrower did not effectively dispute the arrangement and the later accounts removed the basis of objection. It also states that, under the Usurious Loans Act, a court may vary compound interest where the bargain is substantially unfair, taking account of risk, security and the circumstances of the loan. On that approach, six-monthly rests at a very high rate were modified to compound interest at 18 per cent per annum with annual rests, while the principal liability was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>