SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 284

M.M.DUTT, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
Ka Icilda Wallang – Appellant
Versus
V. Lokendra Suiam – Respondent


ORDER :- Both the appellate court and the High Court have found that the plaintiff was not a money-lender within the meaning of Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934. The High Court observed that a few disconnected and isolated transactions would not make the plaintiff a person engaged regularly in Money lending business. The approach of the High Court to the question was correct. We also notice that the defendants did not take the plea that the plaintiff was moneylender in the written statement nor did they adduce any evidence before the trial Court that the plaintiff was a money-lender. In view of this we find no merit in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top