9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 in a case involving dishonour of cheques for loan repayment and legality of debt.
Interpretation of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946: The case involved dishonour of two cheques for repayment of loans allegedly given by the accused at 2% interest per month. The trial Court found the debt not legally enforceable under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, due to the absence of a valid money lending license held by the complainant. The Court noted the significant amounts lent by the complainant to various individuals and the lack of evidence supporting the friendly nature of the transactions. The absence of a money lending license and the execution of promissory notes stipulating interest in cash transactions led the trial Court to conclude that the debt was not legally enforceable under the Act. Validity of Debt and Evidence: The defense argued that the trial Court's view lacked evidential basis as the accused did not present any evidence to support the claim that the transactions were friendly and not usurious. However, in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the accused is not required to prove anything. The complainant's activities as a money lender were highlighted through evidence of substantial cash transactions and legal actions taken against debtors, indicating a pattern of lending without a license. The absence of a money lending license and the nature of the transactions supported the trial Court's decision regarding the enforceability of the debt under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the trial Court's decision, refusing leave in Criminal Application No. 5397 of 2010, and disposing of the matter. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, in determining the legality and enforceability of debts in cases involving money lending activities without a valid license.
|
