Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Nandram Kaniram and Ors. Versus : N.B. Rahatekr

1993 (7) TMI 358 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Second Appeal No. 85 of 1982 - Dated:- 23-7-1993 - V.A. Mohta, J. For Appellant: Anita A. Agarwal, Adv. For Respondents: A.K. Abhyankar, Adv. for K.J. Abhyankar, Adv. JUDGMENT V.A. Mohta, 1. Dr. N. B. Rahateker, M.B.B.S., D.O.R.S., carrying on medical profession in the city of Pune (the plaintiff) entered into the following transaction with a trading firm Messrs. Nandram Kaniram, through its proprietor Vithaldas Kaniram Bajaj, carrying on business in the city of Pune (the defendant). Plaintiff p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tal of these transactions was 6 or 7. Basic question that arises in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff could be said to carry on "the business of money-lending" so as to bring him within the definition of the term "Money-lender" as per section 2(10) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act ('the Act'), and whether the transaction amounted to "loan" as defined under section 2(9). 3. Few more facts, before I go to the question. The cheque for interest was enca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olding a licence for money-lending as mandated by the Act. The trial Court upheld this defence and dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree, and ordered the defendant to pay a sum of ₹ 19,325/- inclusive of interest, costs, and future interest at 6% per annum on ₹ 15,000/- from the date of suit till realisation. The first Appellate Court took the view that. (i) When the amount was paid to the defendant, "loan to trader" was excluded from the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellants has raised before me three points: (i) Though "loan to trader" was excluded from the definition of the term "loan" on the date of advances the said provision stood deleted by Maharashtra Act. No. 76 of 1975 (which was brought into force from 25th July 1976), when the suit was filed, and legal position as it stood on the date of the suit should decide the issue; (ii) Section 2(9)(f) could not be pressed in the service because the tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advanced, the money-lender held a valid license. What is therefore material is the date of transaction and not the uncertain date of filing of the suit which may be filed on any day within the prescribed limitation. The point No. 1, therefore, has no substance. 6. I failed to appreciate as to how, the transaction would not be an advance made on the basis of a "negotiable instrument" as defined .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version