BEJOY KUMAR ADDYA Vs. SATISH CHANDRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this appeal is that of interest.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on the authority of Abdul Majid v. Ksherode Chaadra Pal 29 Ind. Cas. 843 : 19 C.W.N. 809 : 42 C. 690 and Challaphroo v. Behary 3 Ind. Cas. 394 : 20 C.W.N 408 : C.L.J. 311 has reduced the rate from 15 per cent. cent. with quarterly rests to 12 per cent. simple interest upto the date of suit. He disallowed interest after that date Ha says: The security seems to be quite sufficient. Regard being had to the cases above mentioned and other rulings the circumstances above noted, namely, that the suit had been delayed and interest had accumulated would go to show that the stipulation as to interest is hard and unconscionable.

(3.) So far as those two oases are concerned, they have not always been accepted by this Court as correct. The recent Privy Council decision in Aziz Khan v. Duni Chand 48 Ind. Cas. 933 : 23 C.W.N. 130 : 101 P.R. 1918 : 165 P.W.R. 1918 (P.C.) lays down that unless it can be shown that undue advantage had been taken, the Court ought not to come to the conclusion that the transaction is hard and unconscionable.