https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295237 Repeated lending transactions and the surrounding circumstances supported the inference that the complainant was carrying on money-lending without a licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. Because unlicensed money-lending is prohibited and courts cannot grant relief in favour of an unlicensed money-lender, the amount advanced was treated as not constituting a legally enforceable debt or liability. A cheque issued towards such a transaction therefore could not sustain prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On that basis, leave to appeal against the acquittal was refused and the acquittal was allowed to stand. en-us Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295237 Repeated lending transactions and the surrounding circumstances supported the inference that the complainant was carrying on money-lending without a licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. Because unlicensed money-lending is prohibited and courts cannot grant relief in favour of an unlicensed money-lender, the amount advanced was treated as not constituting a legally enforceable debt or liability. A cheque issued towards such a transaction therefore could not sustain prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On that basis, leave to appeal against the acquittal was refused and the acquittal was allowed to stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295237