<?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>1966 (10) TMI 163 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274064</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Usurious Loans (Madras Amendment) Act VIII of 1937 permits relief where a loan transaction is substantially unfair, and excessive interest must be assessed in light of the circumstances at the date of the loan, including security, the debtor&#039;s financial position, the lender&#039;s risk, and the basis for compound interest. Applying that test, the SC accepted the concurrent finding that the security was not inadequate and that the lender&#039;s risk did not justify the higher contractual rate. It further held that 10% compound interest with yearly rests was not excessive on the facts, and that reducing interest to 6% from the date of suit was a proper exercise of discretion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:29:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 163 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274064</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Usurious Loans (Madras Amendment) Act VIII of 1937 permits relief where a loan transaction is substantially unfair, and excessive interest must be assessed in light of the circumstances at the date of the loan, including security, the debtor&#039;s financial position, the lender&#039;s risk, and the basis for compound interest. Applying that test, the SC accepted the concurrent finding that the security was not inadequate and that the lender&#039;s risk did not justify the higher contractual rate. It further held that 10% compound interest with yearly rests was not excessive on the facts, and that reducing interest to 6% from the date of suit was a proper exercise of discretion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>