1993 (7) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1976 through a Hundi Dalal. On that day the defendant gave a post-dated cheque for ₹ 15.000 dated 22nd September 1976, and a cheque for ₹ 562/- representing interest on ₹ 15,000 for a period of 90 days. 2. It is common ground that this is not the only transaction of this nature between the parties. During last seven years, such transactions were entered into by plaintiff with some others traders. Total of these transactions was 6 or 7. Basic question that arises in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff could be said to carry on "the business of money-lending" so as to bring him within the definition of the term "Money-lender" as per section 2(10) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act ('the Act' .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f was a money-lender as defined under section 2(10). Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendant has filed this Second Appeal. 4. Smt. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellants has raised before me three points: (i) Though "loan to trader" was excluded from the definition of the term "loan" on the date of advances the said provision stood deleted by Maharashtra Act. No. 76 of 1975 (which was brought into force from 25th July 1976), when the suit was filed, and legal position as it stood on the date of the suit should decide the issue; (ii) Section 2(9)(f) could not be pressed in the service because the transaction could not be said to be an advance on the basis of a ne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue is not altered. See(Sitaram Laxminarayan Rathi v. Sitaram Kashiram Koli and others), 1984(2)BomCR819 . The point No. 2 is thus meritless. 7. This takes me to the last point over which there was considerable debate before me. Now, whether or not, an individual is carrying on business of money-lending is essentially a question of fact. The final Court of fact has recorded a finding of fact in favour of the plaintiff. I see no reason to interfere with the same in second appeal. Here is a professional carrying on profession in a city like Pune. He must have had savings from the professional income. It would be natural for him to invest the same in a manner by which he can derive maximum return. If he has chosen to advance his savings on int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X