Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...was not paid within a year, he should "from that date" pay interest at an enhanced rate, namely, i per cent, per mensem. The Court said that the only question was whether an agreement to pay an increased rate of interest as well as compound interest amounted to a penalty, and kid that there was nothing penal in the bond, putting the decision on the jround that, if parties enter into extortionate bargains with their eyes open, they are not entitled to relief unless the unfair nature of the transaction was D-t known to them, advantage having been taken of youth, ignorance, or credulity (o). Xo reference was made in either of these cases to s. 74 of the Act. It is submitted that the facts in the two cases were quite different, and gave rise to different questions. In the Allahabad case, the debtor became liable on default to pay a higher rate of interest not from the date of default, that (!) Baid Nuth Da v. Sltmiui nuitd Dux (UM) 22 Cal. 143, 155, 156, followed in Ramctmir I'roMul Singh v. Hii'i Sham fatal (1901) 29 Cal. 43, 51; Aiummalai 'Vtty v. Veeratxtdram Chrttij (1U02) 26 HL 111. () Dip Namin Ittii v. Dipan Bai (1886) 8 All. 188. (-) The Conn reduced the interest to Ks. 9 per cent, per annum reckoned at Propound interest with yearly rests up to the due date of payment, (-) Appa Hun v. Snrijaiiarayana (1887; 10 Mad. 203. The terms of the bond iu respects interest were as follows: Should 1 so fail to pay the amount of interest, I shall pay the interest at 2 per cent, per month, as stated above, on the amount of the interest also from the expiry of the instalment. I shall pay the principal, the amount of interest due, and the amount of interest thereon within one year. Should I fail to clear a year hence the whole amount due to you..."