Skip to main content

Law on giving safe friendly loan in India

 What is a friendly loan?

A friendly loan is basically lending money to your friends or relatives for a personal reason like to help them in the time of financial difficulties.


A loan to a family member or a friend is usually an unsecured loan and the terms and conditions are basically undefined or indeterminate and demanding payback is often difficult. And if the loan goes bad, the relationship also sours. Moreover, such a loan is usually interest-free. This means you lose money.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Is there any legal document so that you can clearly define the terms and conditions of a friendly loan?

There are two ways of doing this:


PROMISSORY NOTE (or)


LOAN AGREEMENT


 

A Promissory note is a written promise to pay a debt. It is a financial instrument, in which one party promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other, either at a fixed, determinable future time or on demand of the payee subject to specific terms and conditions.


If you wish to keep it simple and only for the record, go for a promissory note. This instrument comes under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and has to be signed by the borrower.


A Loan Agreement (Loan Contract) acknowledges that there is a loan, specific promise to pay and also states that the lender has a right to recourse. An example can be a FORECLOSURE. If you want to have a right to recourse, then go for Loan Agreement instead of a Promissory Note.


Consult: Top Recovery Lawyers in India

 


What is the tax implication on loans between friends/family?

A friendly loan is generally without any interest and there is no provision to charge any notional interest on the same. But if you charge interest rate then interest earned on loan has to be treated as “Income from other sources.” This income should be shown in your (lender) Income Tax Return.


If you borrow money from your friend/relative to construct a house, the repayments are not eligible for tax deductions. Tax deduction under Section 80c with respect to principal repayment is not allowed. But Tax benefit under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act can be claimed as Tax deduction with respect to Interest paid on loan. The main criteria is ‘the loan should not be for personal use.


Gifts from family members are not taxable, neither are the loans. But any gift above Rs 50,000 from a friend during a financial year is taxable. However, if it's a loan (with or without interest), it becomes tax-free.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


What precautions should be taken while lending/accepting friendly loans?

All loan transaction should be by account payee cheque or bank draft


If you are giving loan which is interest free ensure that loan is out of your own savings and not from interest bearing borrowed funds.


Be cautious regarding creditworthiness of your lender. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more