9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (11) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in re-opening the transaction on which the suit is founded. The suit is based on a promissory note dated 20th December 1936, which in turn is based on a bond of 28th June 1933. If the transaction can be re-opened then the further question arises whether a repayment of ₹ 55 has been proved. The lower Court has evidently reopened the transaction although it has not stated why. In my opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. No evidence has been taken in the case, and the lower Court has proceeded upon the pleadings. The plaintiff stated that he did not remember whether any payment had been made towards the previous bond, also that the amount stated in the promissory note was reached by calculating interest on the sum due on the bond at 2 per cent, compound. The lower Court made a calculation, and it is only possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regular business. If only an isolated act of money-lending is shown to the Court it is impossible to state that that constitutes a regular course of business. It is an act of business, but not necessarily an act done in the regular course of business. Consequently, the lower Court was wrong in applying this Act. 3. It was argued that the burden is, on the plaintiff to prove that he is not a money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was right in applying the Reduction of Interest Act. The original loan was advanced long before the Act came into force, and consequently no question of vested interests arises. In fact, if anybody has vested interests which has been affected it is the plaintiff because on the date when he lent his money there was no thought in any one's mind that his interest would be arbitrarily reduced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the plaintiff only claimed 6 per cent, in the point that is all he is entitled to. That is correct. Six per cent, is claimed on the assumption that the transaction would not be re-opened. The claim in the plaint is for ₹ 58-13-0. According to the decision here it comes to only ₹ 38-8-0. The decree will accordingly be modified. Costs here and in the lower Court will be proportionate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
