Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)The Orissa Money-lenders' Act, 1939
Konchada Raghunadha Rao vs Puspa Lolana Samulu (Dead) And After Her ... on 3 January, 1994
6. Mr. Ghose, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has strongly contended that by the time the money was advanced the money-lending firm did not come into existence and it was subsequently registered. Such argument cuts no ice inasmuch as the plaintiff had registered himself as a money-lender commencing from the year 1989. On the date of the suit undisputedly the plaintiff was carrying on money-lending business. He did not obtain any certificate from the competent authority as required under Section 18-B of the Orissa Money-Lenders' Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), Had he obtained such certificate authorising him to file a suit for recovery of the amount it could have been maintainable under Section 18-B(8) of the Act. The provisions of Section 18-B(8) takes away the right of the money-lender to file a suit for recovery of the amount without a certificate being obtained from the competent authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 18-B of the Act. This point has been already discussed by the Lower Appellate Court on the basis of a judgment, reported 1994 (1) CJR 145 in the case of Konchada Raghunatha Rao v. Puspa Lolana Samulu (dead) and after her P. N. Baburao (dead) and after him P. Vijaya Kumar Samuel and others. Although the suit was filed in 1992 till date no clearance was obtained from the competent authority as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 18-B of the Act. Therefore, the Court cannot entertain the plaintiffs claim for recovery of the amount even otherwise it is held that the defendants had incurred loan from the plaintiff.
1