<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (4) TMI 698 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175745</link>
    <description>A summary suit under Order 37 was treated as maintainable where the defendant&#039;s balance sheets, correspondence and a memorandum of understanding recorded an admitted and ascertainable liability, making the claim a debt or liquidated demand founded on written material. The objection under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders&#039; Act failed because there was no material showing that the plaintiff was carrying on money-lending as a business. Limitation was held to run from successive written acknowledgments, including balance sheets, a letter certifying the outstanding loan, the memorandum of understanding and part-payments or cheques within time. With no credible statutory bar or bona fide defence shown, no triable issue was disclosed for leave to defend.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 698 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175745</link>
      <description>A summary suit under Order 37 was treated as maintainable where the defendant&#039;s balance sheets, correspondence and a memorandum of understanding recorded an admitted and ascertainable liability, making the claim a debt or liquidated demand founded on written material. The objection under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders&#039; Act failed because there was no material showing that the plaintiff was carrying on money-lending as a business. Limitation was held to run from successive written acknowledgments, including balance sheets, a letter certifying the outstanding loan, the memorandum of understanding and part-payments or cheques within time. With no credible statutory bar or bona fide defence shown, no triable issue was disclosed for leave to defend.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>