Purposive interpretation of money-lender definition: incidental advances for business supply do not bar a recovery suit.

The statutory definition of a money-lender under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 was construed purposively in light of the Act's object of preventing oppression by professional money-lenders. An advance made incidentally to secure a regular supply of areca nuts, where earning interest was not the principal object, did not amount to money-lending. The appellant was therefore not a money-lender within the meaning of the Act, and the recovery suit was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was a money-lender within the meaning of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, and whether the suit for recovery was therefore not maintainable.

Analysis: The statutory definition of a money-lender was examined in the light of the Act's object, which was to prevent oppression by professional money-lenders. The advance of money by the appellant was found to be incidental to the appellant's business of securing regular supply of areca nuts, and not a business carried on for earning interest as such. Although interest was charged, that was not the principal object of the transaction. The expression defining money-lending was therefore required to be construed purposively and not literally in a manner divorced from legislative purpose.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a money-lender within the meaning of the Act, and the suit was maintainable. The appeal succeeded and the High Court judgment was set aside.

---