TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (2) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he form of foodgrains namely, paddy to the defendant. That he complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, namely, sending statements, maintaining accounts and such other formalities. The grain was to be returned with interest which was agreed. Since, however, the defendant did not repay the loan of grain, either in the form of grain or in cash, the plaintiff brought this suit. 3. The defendant apart from denying the claim of the plaintiff, raised a contention that the claim was not enforceable by reason of the Maharashtra Scheduled Foodgrains (Stocks Declaration and Procurement and Disposal, Acquisition, Transport and Price Control) Order, 1966. The trial Judge accepted the contention and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. What the Bombay Money-lenders Act does, is that it permits loans being made in a certain manner. But that does not mean that the Bombay Money-lenders Act is not subject to other laws or any person dealing in money-lending or carrying on business of money-lending would not be governed by other laws dealing with money lending or dealing with other commodities which can become the subject-matter of loan. If a commodity or item of property becomes the subject-matter of any other control or law, then even if it could be a loan by a money-lender if the transaction is in contravention of such rule or law then that transaction, notwithstanding that the Bombay Money-lenders Act otherwise permits it, would not be permitted. It is only if the ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mily, if the foodgrains so sold or disposed of do not exceed in weight at a time:-- (A) in the case of paddy, 20 kilograms; xxx (C) in the case of Jowar, 20 kilograms; and  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n no doubt would be under the circumstances "otherwise disposing of" even assuming that it is not a sale. Further, it would not be correct to say that the property in goods had not passed. In this particular case apparently the foodgrain was given to the defendant on loan for the purposes of sowing. It was, therefore, clearly disposed of so far as the plaintiff was concerned. The plaintiff was not bound or entitled necessarily to receive the paddy in specie. It would, therefore, mean the disposal of the foodgrain and would come within the purview of Clause 10 of the Order. 8. That leaves only a question of application of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act. Similar question had arisen before this Court in Rupam Pictures v. Ramchandra (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly against the provisions of Section 64 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882." 9. Mr. Chandurkar drew my attention to a decision reported in Kuju Collieries v. Jharkhand Mines [1975]1SCR703 . The judgment in that case cites with approval the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Budhulal v. Deccan Banking Co. Ltd. AIR 1955 Hyd 69. In that judgment, the above observations of Pollock and Mulla's Indian Contract Act were not approved and the Full Bench observed (at p. 75): "A person who, however, gives money for an unlawful purpose knowing it to be so, or in such circumstances that knowledge of illegality or unlawfulness can as a finding of fact be imputed to him, the agreement under which the payment is made cannot....