138 nia ..complaint by money lender without money lending licence
amit
(Querist) 29 March 2015
This query is : Resolved
I am facing an trial under 138 NIA in which the complaint said that money was given on interest
in trial he admit he that he do not have Valid money lending licence
is the complaint sustanable
ajay sethi
(Expert) 29 March 2015
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) has
decided in Criminal Application No. 630 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal
(Stamp) No. 139 of 2009 Anil Vs. Purshottam (MANU/MH/1443/2009)
that “as per explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
"debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
So, a loan advanced by a money lender who is doing business of money
lending without licence is not a debt or other liability and provisions of
Section 138 of the Act will not apply to such transaction
Guest
(Expert) 29 March 2015
Mr. Amit,
What complaint says has no relevance. What is the fact is relevant. Irrespective of whether the lender has money lending license or not, you are required to reveal the fact whether you received money and issued cheque in lieu of that and whether you want to repay or not the money, if borrowed?
In the absence of such most desired information, your query is merely an academic query not liable to attract any advice from the experts.
So, better reveal the facts if you want appropriate advice. Otherwise, in my views, the complaint is sustainable, if you intend to swallow the lender's money merely on the plea that he does not hold any lending license.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 29 March 2015
so more facts are required to be divulged by you.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 March 2015
Reveal full facts as advised by the expert.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 30 March 2015
Most of the Judges act only as per the provisions of the NI Act.The don't bother about the complainant, or his profession.When U have given a bill of exchange for a consideration it is UR duty to honour it, if U fail to do so U are liable to be punished according to the Act.But there are ways to defend wisely.
everything depends how UR lawyer presents his defence.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 03 April 2015
I agree with the opinions of experts, you may also note down the advise rendered by expert Mr. Ajay Sethi.
amit
(Querist) 03 April 2015
Thank all for value able suggestions specal thanks to Sir Ajay Sethi
PS Dhingra sahib, sir I do not want to swallow any one money
Detailed Fact
1. yes i had taken money from the person on interest
2 I had given him Blank date cheque to him
as an security
3.I was regularly paying interest
4 Beside Interest i had returned him few amount also
5 All our transactions were through bank
6 MOST IMPORTANT FACT; he beside taking money from the principal amount he filled case for full amount
Sir i don't have any intention of swallowing anyone's money but since i had been booked for an case in wrong manner and my faith was shattered i want to defend my self in best possible manner
i tried my best for compromise but the guy
want full money without reducing the money taken along with till date interest
my cheque was misused,
i had also taken writing expert opionion and submitted the same in court
Now i think i had given required fact
Now kindly please suggest further
amit
(Querist) 03 April 2015
one more fact
the transaction was through FINANCE BROKER
unfortunately he is expired few days back
I was not even knowing the guy till I show him in court, but in court he said that the cheque was given by me at his residence duly filled
he also changed his statement regarding interest, first he said that the money was given without interest
then he changed that money was given on interest
we don't have any written agreement for interest
Guest
(Expert) 03 April 2015
Mr. Amit,
When all your transactions were through bank, what is the cause of your worry? Do you feel that the lender canprove that the whole of lent by him including interest would have been due from you? If yes, on account of what reason? Otherwise, let him prove that the whole of the amount is due from you and what for he had received the money from you through bank transactions.
The fact is that, it is only your own wrong description of the problem, which created doubt that you did not intend to pay back the money merely with the reason that he did not hold any license to lend money. Your problem related to cheque dishonour, but your query was about money lender's license, which was quite irrelevant to your problem. Had you stated all the facts at the first instant, which you have stated now, you could have got the right opinion at the very first instance. But, you preferred to misdirect your own problem by raising a question of the lender having not held license to lend money.
So, now if you have stated the full facts through your reply, you need not worry, as it becomes his duty to prove his case, where your lawyer would be able to cross-examine him to prove him wrong.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 03 April 2015
With the advices and suggestions, you may consult your lawyer and take up the matter more prudently during trial. It is a matter of trial and depends on how your lawyer extracts the facts through cross examination on the basis of evidences in your possession.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 03 April 2015
Your advocate has be be expert than only you can use the above citation given by AJAY SETHI.
That is he should be able to bring on record by cross that the complainant has business of money lending and have been giving money on interest to others.
2) Your hand writing expert report will not help since once you admit your signature it gives implied authority to the holder to fill in the details.
Please tell your place and court location and if possible show all the records for proper guidance in the matter.
