TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses revision applications, ruling foodgrain lending violated Maharashtra Order and Bombay Money Lenders Act.</h1> <h3>Bhaskarrao Jageshwarrao Buty and Ors. Versus Saru Jadhaorao Tumble and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed both revision applications, ruling that the lending of foodgrains by a money-lender was subject to the Maharashtra Foodgrains Order. ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of the Bombay Money Lenders Act regarding lending of foodgrains by a money-lender.2. Application of Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains Order, 1966 on a loan transaction involving foodgrains.3. Analysis of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in the context of an agreement found to be void due to statutory violation.Interpretation of Bombay Money Lenders Act:The plaintiff, a licensed money-lender, advanced a loan in the form of foodgrains to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the Bombay Money Lenders Act permits loans in kind, including foodgrains. However, the court clarified that while the Act allows loans in kind, it does not override other laws or regulations governing the specific commodity. Thus, even though the Act permits lending of grains, if it violates any other law or order, the transaction would not be permissible under the Act.Application of Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains Order:The defendant contended that the loan transaction was not enforceable due to the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains Order, 1966, which prohibits unauthorized sale or disposal of foodgrains. The court held that lending foodgrains also falls under 'disposing of' as per the Order, even if not a sale. Since the property in the foodgrains was transferred to the defendant for sowing, it constituted a violation of the Order. Consequently, the court upheld the trial judge's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's suit based on this ground.Analysis of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act:The plaintiff invoked Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, arguing that the transaction was void due to the violation of the Foodgrains Order. The court referred to a previous case and legal commentary to establish that Section 65 does not apply when the agreement is in violation of a statutory provision. Imputing knowledge of the illegality to both parties, the court concluded that allowing the plaintiff to recover the lent foodgrains or money would perpetuate an illegal act. Therefore, the court dismissed the revision applications, holding that the suits were rightly rejected by the trial judge.In conclusion, the court dismissed both revision applications, emphasizing that the lending of foodgrains by a money-lender was subject to the Maharashtra Foodgrains Order and did not qualify for relief under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act due to the statutory violation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
