Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Gyanananda Sen vs Ranjit Kumar Das And Anr. on 20 January, 2003

M/S Shree Ram Palace vs Sh. Rakesh Kumar on 31 August, 2015

Reliance placed upon - (1) Shop named Kaloji Talusappa Ganga Vathi Vs. Khyanagouda & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1420; (2) Daljit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Popal Dass, AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 211; (3) Gyanananda Sen Vs. Ranjit Kumar Das & Anr., AIR 2003 Orissa 166; (4) Jaswanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Sunil Mehra, AIR 2004 Himachal Pradesh 15; (5) Niranjan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh, RSA No. 2551 of 1987 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 03.03.2010; and (6) Smt. Fula Devi Vs. Mangtu Maharaj & Ors., AIR 1969 Patna 294 (V 56 C 75) Full Bench. Plaintiff is not having license of money lender nor is a registered money lender and is accordingly not entitled to lend any money and such a suit by money lender is barred accordingly. Cumulative effect of entire above discussions is that plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus on this issue for being entitled for recovery of sum claimed from defendant. Issue no­3 is decided in favour of defendant and against plaintiff accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Kirpal Singh Tomar vs Sh. Kamal Singh on 6 February, 2016

20. No document has been proved on record for existence of matrimonial relationship between plaintiff and daughter of defendant. No books of account have been relied upon by the plaintiff/PW­1, no Income Tax Returns have been placed on record by the plaintiff to prove that he was having financial capacity to lend the claimed sum to defendant. Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act, 1961 prohibits any person from taking or accepting any loan or deposit in cash, where the amount is more than Rs. 20,000/­. Financial soundness of plaintiff to the tune of loan advanced, stands not proved. In terms of Section 3 of The Punjab CS­353/2013 Sh.Kirpal Singh Tomar Vs. Sh. Kamal Singh Page 18 of 21 Registration of Money Lender's Act, 1938 as adopted in NCT of Delhi, the suit of money lender is barred unless money lender is registered and holding a valid license in prescribed form. Reliance placed upon - (1) Shop named Kaloji Talusappa Ganga Vathi Vs. Khyanagouda & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1420; (2) Daljit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Popal Dass, AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 211; (3) Gyanananda Sen Vs. Ranjit Kumar Das & Anr., AIR 2003 Orissa 166; (4) Jaswanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Sunil Mehra, AIR 2004 Himachal Pradesh 15; (5) Niranjan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh, RSA No. 2551 of 1987 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 03.03.2010; and (6) Smt. Fula Devi Vs. Mangtu Maharaj & Ors., AIR 1969 Patna 294 (V 56 C 75) Full Bench. Plaintiff is not having license of money lender nor is a registered money lender and is accordingly not entitled to lend any money and such a suit by money lender is barred accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

) Sh. Roop Kishore Rastogi vs ) Sh. Roshan Bhai Jewellers on 19 March, 2016

11. Entire pleadings of appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint nowhere finds mention that sum of Rs. 50,000/­ was advanced by appellants/plaintiffs to respondents/defendants as relative or friend or acquaintances. PW­1 in the course of cross­examination before Trial Court elicited that appellants/plaintiffs were dealing with the respondents/defendants since the year 2003. PW­1 further elicited that RCA­06/2015 Sh. Roop Kishore Rastogi & Anr. Vs. Sh. Roshan Bhai Jewellers & Anr. Page 11 of 14 respondent/defendant no­2 was not a friend of PW­1 but a friend of his brother. PW­1 further elicited of having never visited house of respondent/defendant no­2. DW­1 in course of cross­examination elicited that parties were carrying money transactions since year 1998. Appellant/plaintiff no­2 is HUF and appellant/plaintiff no­1 is Karta of said HUF with which the respondents/defendants are neither stated to be acquaintances, relatives or friend as per the averments of the plaint. In terms of Section 3 of The Punjab Registration of Money Lender's Act, 1938 as adopted in NCT of Delhi, the suit of money lender is barred unless money lender is registered and holding a valid license in prescribed form. Reliance placed upon - (1) Shop named Kaloji Talusappa Ganga Vathi Vs. Khyanagouda & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1420; (2) Daljit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Popal Dass, AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 211; (3) Gyanananda Sen Vs. Ranjit Kumar Das & Anr., AIR 2003 Orissa 166; (4) Jaswanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Sunil Mehra, AIR 2004 Himachal Pradesh 15; (5) Niranjan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh, RSA No. 2551 of 1987 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 03.03.2010; and (6) Smt. Fula Devi Vs. RCA­06/2015 Sh. Roop Kishore Rastogi & Anr. Vs. Sh. Roshan Bhai Jewellers & Anr. Page 12 of 14 Mangtu Maharaj & Ors., AIR 1969 Patna 294 (V 56 C 75) Full Bench.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

) Sh. Harish Chand Rastogi vs ) Sh. Roshan Bhai Jewellers on 19 March, 2016

14. In terms of Section 3 of The Punjab Registration of Money Lender's Act, 1938 as adopted in NCT of Delhi, the suit of money lender RCA­07/2015 Sh. Harish Chand Rastogi & Anr. Vs. Sh. Roshan Bhai Jewellers & Anr. Page 12 of 14 is barred unless money lender is registered and holding a valid license in prescribed form. Reliance placed upon - (1) Shop named Kaloji Talusappa Ganga Vathi Vs. Khyanagouda & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1420; (2) Daljit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Popal Dass, AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 211; (3) Gyanananda Sen Vs. Ranjit Kumar Das & Anr., AIR 2003 Orissa 166; (4) Jaswanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Sunil Mehra, AIR 2004 Himachal Pradesh 15; (5) Niranjan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh, RSA No. 2551 of 1987 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 03.03.2010; and (6) Smt. Fula Devi Vs. Mangtu Maharaj & Ors., AIR 1969 Patna 294 (V 56 C 75) Full Bench.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cs - 9685/16 vs Kay Bee & Co on 28 October, 2017

CS - 9685/16              M/s. SRP Industries Limited Vs.Kay Bee & Co. & Ors.                        Pg.  11 of  16 (2) Daljit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Popal Dass, AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 211; (3) Gyanananda Sen Vs. Ranjit Kumar Das & Anr.,   AIR   2003   Orissa   166;   (4)   Jaswanti   Devi   &   Ors.   Vs. Sunil Mehra, AIR 2004 Himachal Pradesh 15; (5) Niranjan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh, RSA No. 2551 of 1987 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 03.03.2010; and (6) Smt. Fula Devi Vs. Mangtu Maharaj & Ors., AIR 1969 Patna 294 (V 56 C 75) Full Bench.  Plaintiff is not having license of money lender nor is a registered money lender and is accordingly not entitled to lend any money and such a suit by money lender is barred accordingly. Originals of Mark PW1/1 to Mark PW1/9 were stated to be in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation in a matter registered by it inter alia against one official of defendant no.4 facing trial with other co­accused before the Court holding special jurisdiction under provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act.  Such original documents of copies marked Mark PW1/1 to Mark PW1/9 were not   requisitioned   by   the   plaintiff   in   the   course   of   plaintiff evidence   before   the   Ld.   Local   Commissioner   nor   steps   were taken before the Court for ensuring their production to prove their copies.   Mark PW1/1 to Mark PW1/9 accordingly stand not proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1