https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194488 The court held that the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 applied to the petitioners as they had provided loans without obtaining a required license. The hire-purchase agreement was deemed a loan under the Act, following precedent. Procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. were met as the complainant was a public servant. The court found petitioner No. 2 responsible based on specific allegations. The petitioners' request to quash the complaint was denied, and they were to face trial for the alleged offenses. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:08:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194488 The court held that the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 applied to the petitioners as they had provided loans without obtaining a required license. The hire-purchase agreement was deemed a loan under the Act, following precedent. Procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. were met as the complainant was a public servant. The court found petitioner No. 2 responsible based on specific allegations. The petitioners' request to quash the complaint was denied, and they were to face trial for the alleged offenses. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194488