Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Bejoy Kumar Addya And Ors. vs Satish Chandra Ghose And Anr. on 26 August, 1919

Vijaya Bank And Etc. vs Art. Trend Exports And Etc. on 28 February, 1990

The Division Bench took Into consideration the two Privy Council decisions in Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand AIR 1918 PC 48 and Lala Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah in AIR 1918 PC 249 and also the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bejoy Kumar Adhya v. Satish Chandra Chose AIR 1920 Cal 529 in this connection and did not follow the earlier decision in Krishna Chandra Barman v. Sanat Kumar Das (1917) ILR 44 Cal 162 : (AIR 1917 Cal 502).
Calcutta High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Vijaya Bank vs Art. Tend Exports And Peerless Plastics ... on 28 February, 1990

The Division Bench took into consideration the two Privy Council decisions in Aziz Khan v. Duni-Chand AIR 1918 PC 48 and Balla Mal v. Ahad Shah AIR 1918 PC 249, and also the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bejoy Kumar Adhya v. Satish Chandra Ghose AIR 1920 Cal 529, in this connection and did not follow the earlier decision in Krishna Chandra Barman v. Sanat Kumar Das AIR 1917 Cal 162.
Calcutta High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Jyotish Chandra Dutt vs Atit Saha Kinkar Shah And Ors. on 5 August, 1920

per annum is too high and unconscionable. It has further been found that the creditor was in a position to dominate the will of his borrower, and that the plaintiff-appellant, has been unable to discharge the burden thrown upon him by Clause (3) of Section 16 of the Contract Act and show that the stipulation for interest was not induced by undue influence. On these findings we think the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be upheld. The present case is a very different case from the cases similar to the cases of Bejoy Kumar Aidya v. Satish Chandra Ghose 56 Ind. Cas. 1007 : 24 C.W.N. 444 at P. 448. It is not a casa where a Court has reduced the contract rate of interest solely on the ground that it is hard and unconscionable. In the case cited such an order was reversed, though the lower Court had held that the stipulation for interest was hard and uncontained able since there was not the further important feature that the money-lender was in a position to dominate the will of the borrower. We are not prepared to hold that the decision of the lower Court that the interest at 24 per cent. per annum when the loan was granted on substantial security, is act a rate that can properly be described as hard and unconscionable We are not inclined to interfere with these findings sitting as a Court fecund appeal circa we interfere with the findings that the creditor was in position to dominate the will of the borrower who was his servant and the further finding that the plaintiff has not proved that the contract was not induced by undue influence. We hold that, on the findings, the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct and this appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1