TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1940 (8) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt is the Conjeevaram Hodgsonpet Dharmarakshaka Nidhi, Ltd., from whom the petitioner borrowed ₹ 1,500 in February, 1927, upon a mortgage bond. The suit is brought upon this mortgage bond in March, 1932, and a decree has been granted to the respondent and the mortgaged property has been sold. The petitioner has applied under Section 23 of the Act to have the sale set aside. He will not be en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest is chargeable on both interest and the amount due for subscriptions. The learned! District Munsif who tried the suit in the first instance has held that Section 10(2)(iii) prevents the petitioner from taking advantage of the provisions of the Act. He says that the Legislature in drafting this sub-section is dealing only with the primary rate of interest charged and that the section cannot ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find that towards the sum of ₹ 1,500 borrowed in February, 1927, a sum of ₹ 1,396-3-3 has been credited as part repayment. The suit is for the balance, namely, ₹ 807-13-2 and the accounts have been closed shortly before the filing of the suit in March, 1932,, The result then is that for a debt of ₹ 1,500 incurred in February, 1927, a total sum of ₹ 1,396-3-3 plus S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of this bond on a debt of ₹ 1,500 for a period of just over five years. Arithmetical calculation will show that this interest represents a rate of slightly more than 9 per cent, per annum. It seems to me therefore that with respect to the present claim as the interest works out at more than'9 per cent, per annum the respondent cannot successfully argue that Section 10(2)(iii) applie....