Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)

Katte Shivappa vs Kori Eranna on 17 September, 1985

45. ISSUE NO.5:- In this Issue, the defendants have to prove that, suit is not maintainable and is barred under the provisions of Karnataka Money Lenders Act and provisions of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. In the written statement at Para No.15, defendants-2 and 4 have raised this plea. But, in the citation given in ILR 1986(1) Kar Page180 in a case Katte Shivappa Vs. Kari Eranna.> it is held that.> In order to make a person money lender within the meaning of this Act, the defendant must show that, the plaintiff has been advancing a series of loan in-continuity. Two or three stray instances of lending money will not make him a money lender. The activities of money lending must be carried on as a business. There must be a profit motive and money lending must be carried on as a profession. These observations made in this citation shows that, only after proof of these ingredients, one can be called as a money lender. So far as regards the plaintiff of this suit is concerned, the defendants 43 OS No.27225/2011 have not placed acceptable materials before this court to hold that-> The plaintiff is the money lender. Hence, this Issue No.5 is to be answered in the negative. Accordingly, I answered this Issue No.5 in the negative.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1