1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Defendant granted leave to defend suit over Promissory Note dispute under Bombay Money Lenders Act.</h1> The court granted the Defendant unconditional leave to defend the suit due to conflicting claims regarding the alleged default on a Promissory Note and ... - Issues involved: Alleged default on a Promissory Note, applicability of Bombay Money Lenders Act, limitation period, authenticity of signature on the Promissory Note, compliance with Money Lenders Act provisions.Alleged default on Promissory Note:- Plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 94,432.87 with interest based on a Promissory Note dated 23rd March, 2008.- Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to repay the sum of Rs. 80,000 as per the Promissory Note despite receiving a notice demanding payment.- Defendant denied any transaction with the Plaintiff, alleging the Promissory Note was forged and no notice was received.- Court considered the conflicting claims and found disputed questions of facts, granting Defendant unconditional leave to defend the suit.Applicability of Bombay Money Lenders Act:- Defendant argued that the suit is not applicable for summary procedure due to the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.- Court referred to previous judgments and held that if the Money Lenders Act applies to a suit filed under Order XXXVII, unconditional leave must be given to the Defendant.- Both parties presented arguments on the applicability of the Act, with Defendant ultimately granted unconditional leave to defend the suit.Limitation period and authenticity of signature:- Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and disputed her signature on the Promissory Note.- Plaintiff claimed to have served a notice demanding payment, which Defendant denied receiving.- Court noted the conflicting claims regarding the authenticity of the signature and the notice, concluding that triable issues were raised by the Defendant.Compliance with Money Lenders Act provisions:- Plaintiff argued compliance with Money Lenders Act provisions, while Defendant raised concerns about non-compliance.- Court examined the arguments and found that the provisions of the Act had been complied with, allowing the Defendant to defend the suit on the grounds raised.- Defendant directed to file a Written Statement within four weeks, and the suit was transferred to the list of Commercial Causes for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
