The High Court condoned a 521-day delay in filing the second appeal. It held that there is no requirement for registration as a money lender unless the person is professionally engaged in money lending. The suit was treated as one under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the appeal was dismissed.
The second appeal was dismissed with the delay condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.587 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.587 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.19.09.2015
Roop Singh
.......Appellant
Versus
Chetan Singh
......Respondent
Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
not registered as money lender and therefore, the enforcement of the claim for recovery of money on a promissory note was not competent. There is no particular requirement that a person who lends the money should have a licence unless he is a professional money lender and there is a requirement of registration as such. Any private accommodation to a person who is known or to class of persons whom the plaintiff used to give money when he was professionally engaged in some other duty will not require any such registration. Merely because he has lent money, it ought not to be taken that he was a professional money lender. The suit ought to be taken as one instituted under the Negotiable Instruments Act and if proof of the instrument was available, there was no scope for dismissal of the suit.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.22 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.587 of 2013 (O&M)
second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 19, 2015
Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.22 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for recovery on a promissory note instituted by an unregistered individual constitutes a professional money lending activity requiring registration.
Whether the dismissal of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the plea of non-registration of the plaintiff as a money lender is legally sustainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Roop Singh
Chetan Singh
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
