TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1948 (12) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... note. 3. The respondent is a moneylender and trader and, it is not disputed that in the course of such business he was advancing loans and supplying sundry articles from time to time to the appellant. This case is not concerned with transactions that took place before 1929. It is the respondent's case that in respect of moneys advanced and goods supplied in and after 1929 there was a settlement of account as a result of which a sum of Rs. 49,747-12-0 was found due from the appellant and accordingly he passed in favour of the respondent a promissory note for that sum on 8th September 1932 agreeing to pay simple interest at 9 per cent. per annum. The amount was made up of Rs. 23,321-7-0 being advances in cash, Rs. 15,294-3-3 being the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... part of the country where the transactions took place. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, worked out the average rate of interest on the various transactions on the basis of simple interest and, finding that it was over 13 per cent. per annum held that the interest charged was "exorbitant and excessive." He was of opinion that 6 per cent. per annum was a reasonable and just rate having regard to the fact that the appellant was the "premier zamindar" of the place and had no other debts to pay. The High Court, on the other hand, was of opinion that no ground was made out for holding that the rate of interest charged was in excess of "the commercial rate prevailing at the time." The term "commercial" used in such context by the Privy Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receive a part payment. On these grounds the learned Judge held that the transaction was unfair. The High Court held that these two circumstances afforded no ground for holding that the transaction as a whole was substantially unfair as between the parties, and we entirely agree with that view. The allowance of a com-mission on the purchase of a motor car is a matter of bargain between the dealer and the purchaser, and its non-allowance cannot be regarded as necessarily inconsistent with fair dealing. The charge of a small sum as travelling expenses of the respondent, even if it was not strictly justifiable in the circumstances, was too trivial a fault to vitiate the fair character of a transaction which covered numerous dealings extending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount mentioned in the promissory note of 1985 on which the suit was brought, there was no room here for the application of that section. They relied on certain previous rulings of their own Court including Deo Nandan Prasad v. Ram Prasad A.I.R. (81) 1944 Pat. 303 F.B. and the decision of this Court in Jaigobind Singh v. Lachmi Narain Ram A.I.R. (27) 1940 F.C. 20 in support of their view of the construction of Section 7. While the decisions in Patna undoubtedly support that view, we are unable to find any clear pronouncement by this Court on the point in Jaigobind Singh v. Lachmi Narain Ram A.I.R. (27) 1940 F.C 20. In that case the parties settled accounts in respect of a preexisting liability and agreed that part of the money borrowed....