Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1857; [1966]1SCR345
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the decree of the High Court of Orissa reversing the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 8,216 due on a promissory note executed by Kontaru Naiko, defendant No. 1 for 6,000. 2. The plaintiff money-lender obtained a registration certificate under s. 5(4) and r. 5, of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939 (Act III of 1939), hereinafter called the Act, and the rules thereunder, on March 31, 1952. He obtained another registration certificate in 1955 which said that the maximum capital for which the certificate is granted is Rs. 8,000. 3. The plaintiff advanced the loan to defendant No. 1 of May 19, 1954 and sued for the recovery of the amount due on this loan. It was contended for the defendant that the suit was not maintainable as the maximum capital for which the plaintiff had required the registration certificate in 1952 was Rs. 2,000 and under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1852; 1966(0)BLJR127; [1966]1SCR335
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. The sole point urged in this appeal under certificate from High Court iswhether a money-lender registered under the Bihar Money- Lenders Act, 1938(Bihar Act III of 1938), hereinafter called the Act, can sue his debtor for aloan in excess of the amount mentioned as the maximum amount up to which hecould transact business under the registration certificate issued to him. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. Sant Saranlal andBhanuprakash Lal, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, sued defendants Nos. 1to 4 for the recovery of Rs. 15,370 said to have been advanced to them whoconstituted a partnership business under the name and style of BanwarilalKishanlal in 1947. Out of this amount, Rs. 3,500 had been lent prior to January17, 1950 and the balance of Rs. 11,870 was lent between January 21, 1950 andMay 14, 1951. The suit was contested on various grounds. 3. The trial court found that the various amounts were advanced for thepurposes of the firm. It found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC230; [1966]1SCR319
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant, Mirza All Akbar Kashani, against the two respondents, the United Arab Republic, and the Ministry of Economy, Supplies, Importation Department of the Republic of Egypt at Cairo, on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. By his plaint, the appellant claimed to recover from the respondents damages assessed at Rs. 6,07,346 for breach of contract. According to the appellant, the contract in question was made between the parties on March 27, 1958. Respondent No. 2 which was a party to the contract had agreed to buy tea from the appellant upon certain terms and conditions; one of these was that respondent No. 2 would not place any further orders in India for purchase of tea with anyone else during the tenure of the contract and that it would, in every case, give the appellant the benefit of the first refusal for respondent No. 2's additional requirements. The appellant alleged that during the tenure of the ...
Tag this Judgment!