<?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>1940 (12) TMI 24 - FEDERAL COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275902</link>
    <description>The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 was examined under the pith and substance doctrine and treated as a provincial measure for relief of agriculturists and money-lending relations. Its overlap with the law of negotiable instruments was regarded as incidental, and where a decree on a promissory note had already been passed, the liability was treated as merged into a judgment-debt so that the Act operated on the decree. The majority therefore held the Act valid in its application to the decree, notwithstanding the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Usurious Loans Act. A dissent considered Sections 8 and 19 repugnant to the occupied federal field.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:38:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1940 (12) TMI 24 - FEDERAL COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275902</link>
      <description>The Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 was examined under the pith and substance doctrine and treated as a provincial measure for relief of agriculturists and money-lending relations. Its overlap with the law of negotiable instruments was regarded as incidental, and where a decree on a promissory note had already been passed, the liability was treated as merged into a judgment-debt so that the Act operated on the decree. The majority therefore held the Act valid in its application to the decree, notwithstanding the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Usurious Loans Act. A dissent considered Sections 8 and 19 repugnant to the occupied federal field.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>