TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs and assured to repay the same within one or two months. The applicant paid the amount. However, according to the applicant, the respondent failed to repay the amount and therefore demand was raised by applicant pursuant to which the present respondent issued cheque dated 24.5.2005 drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, Ahmednagar Branch, for Rs. 2.00 lakhs. On 25.5.2005, the applicant deposited that cheque in the said bank for encashment, but the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. 3 . Thereafter on 4.6.21005, the applicant issued notice to the Respondent calling upon him to pay the amount within fifteen days and since the amount was not paid, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence of DW1 Premlata Balasaheb Parkhe at Exh.50 who is an employee of the Income tax Department. She produced income tax returns of the present applicant at Exhibits 52 and 53 and in paragraph 16 of the judgment, the trial court noted that the total income of the applicant in the year 200203 was Rs. 60,000/= and for the year 200304, it was Rs. 57,989/= and it is amply clear that the person having such income could not have lent amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs in lumpsum to the respondent accused. There is no other documentary evidence led by the complainant to prove that he actually lent Rs. 4.00 lakhs. It is the case of present Respondent that he borrowed amounts of Rs. 10,000/= and Rs. 20,000/= from the applicant and repaid Rs. 50,000/=. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness of money lending except in the area for which he has been granted a licence and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence. It is not the case of present applicant complainant that he has any money lending licence. Section 10 of the Act lays down that no court shall pass a decree in favour of a moneylender in any suit to which said Act applies unless the court is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was advanced, the moneylender held a valid licence, and if the court is satisfied that the moneylender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit. In other words, carrying on money lending business without licence debars a person from doing money lendi....