CHUNILAL MOKAMDAS MARWADI Vs. ECHRISTOPHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued to redeem their ornaments by paying the loan amount and interest thereon at eighteen per cent per annum. They admitted that they borrowed the amount of Rs. 2,000 for their business from the defendant and passed to him a promissory note dated September 17, 1922, for that amount on the pledge of ornaments and Cash Certificates of the Post Office, agreeing to pay interest at 6- per cent per mensem, but they alleged that they were orally told by the defendant that they would be charged interest at 1- per cent per mensem on the promissory note amount when it was returned. The defendant denied ever having promissed to charge interest at 1J per cent per mensem.

(2.) The chief contention of the plaintiffs was that the Court could give relief against the transaction as being harsh and oppressive under Secs.16, 19A and 74 of the Indian Contract Act and the Usurious Loans Act X of 1918. It is quiteclear that the provisions of the Indian Contract Act would be of no assistance whatever to the plaintiffs. They wanted money for their business and expected to make a good profit out of the business when assisted by the loan from the defendant. The first plaintiff had to admit that she consented freely and willingly to pay a high rate of interest in anticipation of realising a bumper profit out of her own business. The defendant demanded one anna interest and she consented. There cannot, therefore, be any question of undue influence or misrepresentation, and the trial Judge was right in his decision on this point.

(3.) The Judge then referred to the Usurious Loans Act X of 1918 and held that the A-st could not apply where the suit is brought by a debtor. Under Section 2 (3) a suit to which the Act applies means any suit, (a) for the recovery of o loan made after the commencement of the Act, (b) for the enforcement of any security taken or any agreement whether by way of settlement of account or otherwise made after the commencement of the Act, in respect of any loan made either before or after the commencement of the Act. I should say that it is possible that a suit for the enforcement of an agreement whether by way of settlement of account or otherwise made in respect of any loan might include a suit brought by a debtor.