S138
Y Singh N Rajput
(Querist) 11 April 2010
This query is : Resolved
Party filed a case u/s 138 alleging cheque bounce, purportedly issued for payment of part interest of the principal amount. Plaintiff says that the principal amount was extended as secured loan against property. The palintiff's prime occupation was service in a state government department. He had no licence for money lending. This appears to be a an isolated case on record of money lending. On cross examination the plaintiff agreed that he had no capacity to tender the large amount. He says that his acount was operated by a third party who conducted transactions. Allied facts include -1. The mortgage deed was unregistered. -2. The details of cheques in the mortgage deed and banker's certificate also differ.-3. No civil /cr case filed for recovery of the pricipal amount.
Please comment about (a) whether the plaintiff can be regarded as a money lender? (b) what are chances of plaintiff winning this case?
anantha krishna n.v. Advocate
(Expert) 11 April 2010
a stray financing to friends may not be termed as money lender business. What is this third party operating the account?
when he admits in cross that he hs no capacity to lend huge amounts, what was your next question? did he admit that the money was given by some one else than him?
the material on record is not discussed in the query. So my suggestion to you is,
seriously check for loopholes in the evidence to show that theamount claimed doesnot fall within the definition of LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT
or
there is no CREDITOR AND DEBTOR Relationship between parties.
Y Singh N Rajput
(Querist) 16 April 2010
Thank you very much to provide me your advice.
I am enclosing a file to clarify this matter.
Looking forward for your reply
Regards
Y Singh
