https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783013 A commercial bill discounting arrangement was treated as governed by its contractual terms, not as a loan attracting the Usurious Loans Act. The agreed interest, monthly rests, and withdrawal of a concessional rate on default were upheld because party autonomy under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 required the tribunal to give effect to the bargain, and the stipulated interest was not penal or contrary to public policy merely because it was high. Clause 4 of the sanction letters was also upheld as clear and bilateral; contra proferentem did not apply, and no separate notice was required before withdrawing the concessional rate. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783013 A commercial bill discounting arrangement was treated as governed by its contractual terms, not as a loan attracting the Usurious Loans Act. The agreed interest, monthly rests, and withdrawal of a concessional rate on default were upheld because party autonomy under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 required the tribunal to give effect to the bargain, and the stipulated interest was not penal or contrary to public policy merely because it was high. Clause 4 of the sanction letters was also upheld as clear and bilateral; contra proferentem did not apply, and no separate notice was required before withdrawing the concessional rate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783013