1940 (8) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adras Act IV of 1938. The respondent is the Conjeevaram Hodgsonpet Dharmarakshaka Nidhi, Ltd., from whom the petitioner borrowed Rs. 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 sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cent, but on default further interest 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 charge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore to such an examination and I find that towards the sum of Rs. 1,500 borrowed in February, 1927, a sum of Rs. 1,396-3-3 has been credited as part repayment. The suit is for the balance, namely, Rs. 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 Rs. 1,500 incurred in February, 1927, a total sum of Rs. 1,396....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f this bond on a debt of Rs. 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) applies. If it d....