<?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>1948 (12) TMI 11 - BEFORE FEDERAL COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197141</link>
    <description>Relief under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 required proof of both excessive interest and substantial unfairness, and neither was established: the record supported the finding that the rates charged were reasonable, and the adverse features relied on were too trivial to make the transaction as a whole substantially unfair. Relief under the Bihar Money-lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939 was also unavailable because Section 6 did not apply to loans advanced before commencement, Section 7 applied to the document sued on rather than an earlier document, and Section 8 was discretionary and showed no basis for reopening the transaction or taking accounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:38:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1948 (12) TMI 11 - BEFORE FEDERAL COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197141</link>
      <description>Relief under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 required proof of both excessive interest and substantial unfairness, and neither was established: the record supported the finding that the rates charged were reasonable, and the adverse features relied on were too trivial to make the transaction as a whole substantially unfair. Relief under the Bihar Money-lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939 was also unavailable because Section 6 did not apply to loans advanced before commencement, Section 7 applied to the document sued on rather than an earlier document, and Section 8 was discretionary and showed no basis for reopening the transaction or taking accounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>