Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
S.Sekar – Appellant
Versus
M/s. P.C.Choudhary And Sons Rep. by its Kartha Mr.Padamchand Choudhary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and overview of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 21) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on interest capping. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondent's defense and objections. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's references to precedent on applicability of laws. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's reasoning regarding the inapplicability of the act. (Para 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 6. final decision and dismissal of the petition. (Para 23) |
O R D E R
A borrower who filed O.P.No.2 of 2022 under Sections 3 , 5, 8 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by dismissal of the said original petition, he has preferred the present revision petition.
2. I have heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Kempraj, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the records and the decisions on which reliance has been placed on by the learned counsel on either side.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kamadevan would state that for recovering a mortgage loan of Rs.75 lakhs and the respondent being a money lender, there is a clear bar for the respondent
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
