Money-lending business test under the Bombay Act turns on the advance date, cheque-based advances, and proof of systematic lending.

The Bombay Money-Lenders Act applied only if the advance was a loan on the date money was advanced; on that date, the transaction did not satisfy the statutory definition, and the later suit did not change its character. A cheque, including a post-dated cheque, remained a negotiable instrument, so an advance against it was treated as made on that basis. Whether the plaintiff was carrying on the business of money-lending was a question of fact, and sporadic advances without system, repetition, or continuity did not amount to such business. The statutory bar therefore did not apply, and the plaintiff's decree remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transaction between the parties amounted to a loan within the meaning of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act. (ii) Whether the advance made against a cheque could be treated as an advance on the basis of a negotiable instrument. (iii) Whether the plaintiff was carrying on the business of money-lending so as to attract the statutory bar.

Issue (i): Whether the transaction between the parties amounted to a loan within the meaning of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act.

Analysis: The material date for determining the nature of the transaction was the date on which the money was advanced. On that date, the transaction did not fall within the statutory definition of a loan. The subsequent filing of the suit did not alter the character of the advance, since the statutory requirement turns on the date of advancement of the money.

Conclusion: The transaction was not a loan within the meaning of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the advance made against a cheque could be treated as an advance on the basis of a negotiable instrument.

Analysis: A cheque is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The fact that the cheque was post-dated or intended to be encashed after ninety days did not change its character as a cheque. The advance was therefore made on the basis of a negotiable instrument.

Conclusion: The advance was on the basis of a negotiable instrument.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was carrying on the business of money-lending so as to attract the statutory bar.

Analysis: Whether a person is carrying on the business of money-lending is essentially a question of fact. The finding of the final court of fact that the plaintiff was not a professional money-lender was not shown to be perverse. Sporadic advances made on a few occasions, without system, repetition, and continuity, do not establish the business of money-lending.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not carrying on the business of money-lending.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act did not apply, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the statutory bar against a money-lender to apply, the claimant must satisfy the definition of money-lending business on the relevant date of advancement, and isolated or occasional advances without system, repetition, and continuity do not constitute such business.

---