9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/received by the Defendants from the Plaintiff against and on the basis of execution and handing over of a Demand Promissory Note. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant failed to pay the said amount and kept the Plaintiff on kvm false and baseless promises and therefore the Plaintiff through advocate notice dated 24th November, 2008 called upon the Defendant to pay aggregate amount of Rs.80,000/with interest. It is the case of the Plaintiff that though the Defendant received the notice, neither any reply was given nor was any repayment made to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff, accordingly, filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 94,432.87 ps. with interest on Rs.80,000/from the date of filing the suit till payment or realisation. The Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... graj Bhikumchand and. Co. reported in (1958) LX BLR 1366. The Learned Advocate invited my attention to the last para of the said Judgment at para 1368. This court in the said judgment followed the Judgment of this court in Vithan Krishna v/s. Sogmal Nathmal reported in (1957) 59 BLR 1043 which reads thus : We are, therefore, unable to uphold this submission of Mr. Walawalkar; but it is really not necessary to determine it for the purpose of determining this appeal. Therefore, this particular contention was not expressly negatived by the Court. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary in view of this observation of Mr. Justice Tendolkar expressly to decide in this revision application that the provisions of O.XXXVII do not apply to a sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Money Lenders Act and therefore, he is not entitled to a decree. In that context, D.G. Karnik, J. in the said Order held that the Defendant had not set out as to which provision of the Money Lenders Act had not been complied with and further held that in any event, provisions of Money Lenders Act had been complied with. Para 7 of the said order reads thus 7. Learned counsel for the defendant no. 2 submitted that the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act and, therefore, he is not entitled to a decree. Counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in Sha Damji Deraj v. Megraj Bhikumchand and Co., ILR 1959 Bom 451. In my view, the decision is not applicable to the facts of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned by the provisions of Money Lenders Act, in view of the Judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sha Damji Deraj (supra) Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. Mr. Kutty, the learned advocate informed that there is no contrary view taken by this Court or the Apex Court and the Judgment in case of Sha Damji Deraj (supra) still hold the field. Mr. Jain, the learned advocate could not point out any other Judgment taking contrary view. Since both the parties have also argued on merits, and the Defendant has applied for unconditional leave also on merits, I have considered the same also. 9. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant contended that the amount alleged to have been advanced by the Defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
