https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309946 A recovery decree based on a pronote and receipt could not stand where the courts ignored material admissible evidence, including the receipt and the plaintiff's own cross-examination showing joint handling of the money-lending transactions and repayment calculations. The Court also held that a suit for recovery by a money lender was barred under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 when the plaintiff admitted he was engaged in money lending without registration or a valid licence. The decrees were set aside and the suit failed on both evidentiary and statutory grounds. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Sep 2023 21:13:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309946 A recovery decree based on a pronote and receipt could not stand where the courts ignored material admissible evidence, including the receipt and the plaintiff's own cross-examination showing joint handling of the money-lending transactions and repayment calculations. The Court also held that a suit for recovery by a money lender was barred under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 when the plaintiff admitted he was engaged in money lending without registration or a valid licence. The decrees were set aside and the suit failed on both evidentiary and statutory grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309946