https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289158 A settled course of dealing in an overdraft account can evidence agreement to charge compound interest with monthly rests, and section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act does not exclude proof of that agreement. On the facts, the bank's long-standing practice of striking monthly balances, adding interest, and carrying forward the resulting balance supported the charge, so the decree on that claim was sustained. The bank was also justified in dishonouring two cheques because the overdraft was already insufficiently secured, the security had sharply declined in value, and payment would have improperly enlarged the bank's exposure. The counter-claim therefore failed and the decree in favour of the bank was affirmed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 1919 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:54:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289158 A settled course of dealing in an overdraft account can evidence agreement to charge compound interest with monthly rests, and section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act does not exclude proof of that agreement. On the facts, the bank's long-standing practice of striking monthly balances, adding interest, and carrying forward the resulting balance supported the charge, so the decree on that claim was sustained. The bank was also justified in dishonouring two cheques because the overdraft was already insufficiently secured, the security had sharply declined in value, and payment would have improperly enlarged the bank's exposure. The counter-claim therefore failed and the decree in favour of the bank was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Nov 1919 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289158