https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194491 Res judicata was rejected because the earlier decision arose under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 and did not examine the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, while a pure question of law does not bar fresh adjudication in the same way as a factual finding. The article also states that Gujarat's money-lending competence could not extend to direct regulation of non-banking financial companies already governed by Chapter IIIB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It further notes that the State Act could not impose additional restrictions in that occupied field, so the provisions were inapplicable to such regulated non-banking financial activities. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194491 Res judicata was rejected because the earlier decision arose under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 and did not examine the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, while a pure question of law does not bar fresh adjudication in the same way as a factual finding. The article also states that Gujarat's money-lending competence could not extend to direct regulation of non-banking financial companies already governed by Chapter IIIB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It further notes that the State Act could not impose additional restrictions in that occupied field, so the provisions were inapplicable to such regulated non-banking financial activities. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194491