Smt Lalithadevi M C vs Ramakrishna on 24 November, 2008

11. Cerzeéeering the circumstances and the.jf’ee¢t–._:fi*2et

the ecczzsee had borrewed freer: the Cemeiainfiat

Re.1,45,e9§/- efie agreed to pay inizerest 3:1’Hééké’::ive2;”i”e_eete_, ‘

their”: the rate ef interest eheraed*-by%_’_’tfi’e “Ce’fiee»ia:iVe%§’etj::A7%.;

exerbitantiy high, it is 24% ‘eer*….een’i3rfi:, .fi§e’e1ef5._fr*em–‘§this,”V

there is fie eiear rnentian eseifeeeeer;eteerc’aeed to pay” a sum ef Rs.1,45,860;’-

..;i:_e tEv%ee\’:’C*??{fi11iazineAe’t’ ‘eev’ered under the cheeue as aise fine ef

erder ef the triai court and cczrsfirrned by

ifiee fife: Apwete Ceurt directing the accusee in pay a sum

Re.2~,§G,5G0f- is therefore, set aside. In the reeufit the

“:Le’c:ee;ed is difec;-tee te pay a fine ef Rs.1,5S,fiGfi/- with

V’ “W._.H’5e1?euit eerztemze ef twe months simeie imprisonment and

, “there eheii be FIE} ereer reeardénq imerieefiment. Cir: deeeeit

Z53”

cf the ameurzt, Rs.1,55,fi00/~ shail be aazé t_c;__ the

Csmpiainant as cemnaefisation.

13. with thew observations t¥1e”” rev.iSi§’i*a._fié:titL§ofiT’

d§3pec:$ed cf. Ne tests.

VK