https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199973 The court in this case reopened the transaction based on a promissory note and bond under the Usurious Loans Act due to excessive interest charges. It found the plaintiff failed to prove repayment of the claimed amount and did not qualify as a "moneylender" under the Money-lenders Act. The court clarified the burden of proof for establishing money-lender status and adjusted the interest rate under the Reduction of Interest Act. The decree was modified to reflect these findings, with costs apportioned based on the parties' success and failure in the case. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:11:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199973 The court in this case reopened the transaction based on a promissory note and bond under the Usurious Loans Act due to excessive interest charges. It found the plaintiff failed to prove repayment of the claimed amount and did not qualify as a "moneylender" under the Money-lenders Act. The court clarified the burden of proof for establishing money-lender status and adjusted the interest rate under the Reduction of Interest Act. The decree was modified to reflect these findings, with costs apportioned based on the parties' success and failure in the case. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Nov 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199973