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

1991 Supreme(Kar) 160

M.RAMA JOIS, M.M.MIRDHE
MANAKCHAND MOTILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.SHIVAPPA, J.JESHTAMAL

RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ petitions, the petitioners, who are carrying on their business as Pawn Broken after having secured licences under the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961 and persons who are doing business as Money Lenders having taken licences under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers (Amendment) Act, 1985 and the Karnataka Money Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1985 on the ground that the provisions of the said Acts are violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and they have also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 4 (2) (c) and Section 23 (2) of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961 as violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE material facts necessary for the disposal of these cases are these:- With the object of making better provisions for the regulation and control of transactions of money lending in the State, the Legislature enacted the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 ("money lenders Act" for short ). Section 2 (10) of the Act defines the expression 'money Lender', It reads:-"2 (10) "money Lender" means (i) an individual; or (ii) a




















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