https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277669 The court held that the borrower was liable for the watchman's salary debited by the bank because the watchman had been appointed from the inception of the loan arrangement to protect the pledged goods, monthly statements were regularly sent, and the borrower raised no timely objection. It further held that the agreement authorised compound interest with monthly rests, as the contractual wording, read with the parties' consistent conduct, supported monthly capitalisation. Relief under the Usurious Loans Act was refused because the debtor failed to prove that the interest was excessive or that the transaction was substantially unfair at the date of the loan. The decree was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Sat, 18 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:14:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277669 The court held that the borrower was liable for the watchman's salary debited by the bank because the watchman had been appointed from the inception of the loan arrangement to protect the pledged goods, monthly statements were regularly sent, and the borrower raised no timely objection. It further held that the agreement authorised compound interest with monthly rests, as the contractual wording, read with the parties' consistent conduct, supported monthly capitalisation. Relief under the Usurious Loans Act was refused because the debtor failed to prove that the interest was excessive or that the transaction was substantially unfair at the date of the loan. The decree was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 18 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277669