<?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>Mortgage consideration applied to discharge the borrower&#039;s mother&#039;s debt was treated as established because the arrangement was not effectively denied and subsequently produced accounts answered the objection. The principal liability therefore remained unchanged. Under the Usurious Loans Act, relief requires excessive interest and a substantially unfair transaction, assessed by reference to risk, security and the compounding intervals. Although compound interest is not inherently improper, ample security, lower prior lending rates and the borrower&#039;s vulnerability made six-monthly rests at a high rate unfair on a short-term secured loan. Compound interest was consequently regulated to 18 per cent per annum with annual rests.</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>Mortgage consideration applied to discharge the borrower&#039;s mother&#039;s debt was treated as established because the arrangement was not effectively denied and subsequently produced accounts answered the objection. The principal liability therefore remained unchanged. Under the Usurious Loans Act, relief requires excessive interest and a substantially unfair transaction, assessed by reference to risk, security and the compounding intervals. Although compound interest is not inherently improper, ample security, lower prior lending rates and the borrower&#039;s vulnerability made six-monthly rests at a high rate unfair on a short-term secured loan. Compound interest was consequently regulated to 18 per cent per annum with annual rests.</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>