REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. VALI MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The core question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is a moneylender within the meaning of the provisions of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 (for brevity "the Act").

(2.) Before us it is not denied or disputed that in the event it is held that the provisions of the said Act are applicable in the instant case, the impugned judgment must be sustained. Ostensibly, the appellant is a partnership firm. It inter alia carries on business in seeds, medicines, agricultural implements, etc. The appellant, however, accepts that whenever a person is in need of money, the appellant-plaintiff lends him the same.

(3.) The learned trial Judge opined that only because as and when loan is advanced to persons who approached the appellant-plaintiff therefor, the same would not mean that it is a moneylender. The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment, noticing, inter alia, that the plaintiff itself has admitted in Para 10 of the cross-examination that it had given loan to about 60-70 villagers of Village Malvasa on interest at the rate of 2% per month, is itself a pointer that it is a moneylender. It was, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 7 of the M.P. Money Lenders Act were attracted and in its conclusion the plaintiff was found entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,650 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.