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

DELHI HIGH COURT
VALMIKI J.MEHTA
Rajat Jain – Appellant
Versus
Neeta Gupta – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)--These Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) arise from identical judgments passed by the courts below and therefore are being disposed of in terms of this common judgment.

2. The only issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred because of Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lender's Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). As per the said Section 3 of the Act if the respondent/plaintiff has given a loan as his business of giving the loans then recovery of the loan given is prohibited by the Act unless the person who does money lending business is registered under the Act. The first appellate court as per paras 7 to 11 of its impugned judgment has thoroughly, exhaustively and lucidly decided the issue against the appellant/defendant and held that the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent/plaintiff on account of giving loan to the appellant/defendant is not barred, and these paras 7 to 11 read as under:

    "7. I heard learned Counsels for the parties at great length and have given my co

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