|
Here "collusion" is altogether too strong reopened -- Act is not ultra vires Provincial a word to use. Furthermore, the question is not Legislature. whether the appellant and the decree-holder On dates from 1918 to 1921, A borrowed from B were in alliance against the judgment-debtor in sums of money on several pro-notes. In 1921, A execu- . ted a mortgage of his immovable properties to secure the connection with this application. Of course they sum found due on the loans on account of principal and were. The question is whether the appellant's interest. 31-1-1923 was the date fixed for repayment of husband was a party to the fraud at the time mortgage loan. A number of agreements dated between , when it was committed. There is no direct 26-1-1923 to 1928 were thereafter executed by A and B ^ The common feature^of, those documents were that the ยท evidence at all. The only fact proved is that the rate of interest was varied from time to time and the mortgagee purchased the property in the name period for repayment of the mortgage loan was exten of his wife. This is done by prudent mortgagees ded. The mortgagesecurity was expressly kept alive and every day to protect their own interest. There in tact. The arrears of interest were capitalized and ' interest was made payable on the capitalized sum. In is nothing suspicious in it and it would be quite 1942, an application against B was filed under S 38, wrong to infer fraud from this fact alone. As a Bengal Money-Lenders Act : result, it must be held that the application Held (i) that S 36 including proviso (i) to S 36 (1) against the appellant was barred by limitation. applied to proceedings under S 38 and the relevant date . [11] I am informed that I declined to inter for calculating the period of 12 years mentioned in that proviso was the date of the filing of the application fere in revision in connection with the finding of under S 38 : ('44) 31 A I R
|
[1944] Cal 303
|
|
United States - California
|
circa 1945
|
|
|
 3
|
