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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 97227

MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
G. GOPALAKRISHNAN – Respondent
CRP 2846/2018



Advocates:
['m/s k v anantha krishnan', '', 'A JANANI', 'K P MURALIDHARAN', 'v chandrasekar', 'G GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O GANDHI', '', 'SENGAZHUNEER', 'KOIL ST', 'KANCHEEPURAM', '', 'SOLE RESPDT - G GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O GANDHI', '', 'PVT NOTICE', 'SOLE RESPDT - UNCLAIMED', '', 'VIDE COURT ORDER DT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

CRP(PD)No.2846 of 2018

and

CMP.No.16745 of 2018

1.The Manager,

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Kancheepuram.

2.The Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Madras.

...Petitioners

Vs.

G.Gopalakrishnan

...Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, seeking to strike of the entire

proceedings in E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017 on the file of the District

Judge District Court – II, Kancheepuram for want of jurisdiction

and also on the ground of abuse of process of law.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Anantha Krishnan

For Respondent

: No Appearance

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

respondent in E.I.O.P.No.57 of 2017, which is now pending on the

file of the District Court - II, Kancheepuram, questioning

continuation of such proceedings and seeking intervention of the

same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this

Court.

2.The revision petitioner claimed that they are non-

banking financial organisation carrying on business transactions

under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It is stated

that they get loan from outside persons and thereafter, in the

course their normal business, lend the same to persons or also

to industries and they confirm to the guidelines of the Reserve

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Bank of India and collect interest on such lending at the

contractual rates which had been agreed between the parties. It

had been claimed that they would not come under the definition

of a money lender as stated under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu

Money Lenders Act, 1957 and the amount they advanced cannot be

also categorized as a loan.

3.It is claimed that they have to be classified only as a

Bank as stipulated under Section 1(k) of the aforementioned

Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957. In effect, the main crux of

the arguments advanced by Mr.K.V.Anandhakrishnan, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision

petitioners are, a Bank as described under Section 1(k) of the

Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957, since they are a financial

or banking institution notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu

in its gazette and, the amount which they advanced cannot be

categorized as a loan under Section 2(6)(v), since it is an

advance made by a person carrying on business, in the regular

course of such business. The regular course of the business of

the revision petitioner is to lend money. They are governed by

the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

4.It is further stated that the petitioners would also

not come under the ambit or mischief of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. The

amount which they lend, is on contractual basis and therefore,

it cannot be categorized as a loan again under Section 2(6) of

the said Act. Loan under the said Act includes, loan advanced

with interest collected on daily basis, on hourly basis and

called as kandhu vatti, meter vatti or thandal. It is

steneously stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner

does not engage themselves in such lending of loans on such

interest. The interest which they charge are contractual in

nature which is mutually accepted even by the borrower and

confirms to the guidelienes of the Reserve Bank of India.

5.In the normal course of business, they appear to have

lent money to the respondent herein and it is claimed that

during the course of such transaction while obtaining the

amount, on 03.01.2014, the respondent had also mortgaged the

property of his father. There was on obligation to repay the

amount in instalments and having failed to do so, the amount

only accrued

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 Back to top