Isolated money-lending transaction did not trigger registration bar; suit remained maintainable under the moneylenders statute.

An isolated money-lending transaction by a person not carrying on the business of moneylending in the relevant district did not attract the C. P. & Berar Moneylenders' Act's registration bar. The Act was construed as regulating the business of moneylending, with the definition of moneylender tied to loans advanced in the regular course of business; a single transaction therefore did not amount to carrying on that business. Section 11-F did not render such a transaction void, and section 11-H did not bar a suit founded only on that isolated advance. The Court also upheld the settled High Court interpretation and declined to disturb it in the absence of legislative change.

---

---

Issues: Whether an isolated money-lending transaction by a person not carrying on the business of moneylending in the concerned district was void or rendered the suit incompetent under the C. P. & Berar Moneylenders' Act.

Analysis: The Act regulated the business of moneylending and required registration for a person carrying on that business in a district. The definition of moneylender was linked to advancing loans in the regular course of business, and the bar in section 11-F operated against carrying on the business without registration. The Court held that a single or isolated lending transaction did not amount to carrying on the business of moneylending, and section 11-H likewise did not prevent a suit founded only on such an isolated transaction. The Court approved the long-standing construction adopted by the High Courts, distinguished English authorities on a different statutory scheme, and declined to disturb the settled interpretation because it had governed transactions for many years and had not been corrected by legislative amendment.

Conclusion: The isolated transaction was not void and the suit was maintainable; the appeal failed.

---