Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

sanjay haritwal (prop)     05 June 2017

Money landing and 138 negotiable instruments act......

LETS DISCUSS THE MONEY LENDERS [NOT HOLDING LICENSE] POSITION IF HE HAS TO FILE A COMPLAINT

UNDER THE PROVISION OF 138 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

WOULD APPRECIATE UR INPUTS AND CITATIONS FROM ALL QUARTERS

 



Learning

 6 Replies

Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 )     05 June 2017

https://www.complaintboard.in/complaints-reviews/unlicensed-money-lenders-l292215.html

mohanvarghese (Advocate)     05 June 2017

There is nothing in the NI act which differentiate between an ordinary lender and money lenders. The cardinal rule is that the cheque in question should be executed to discharge a legal debt. Once that is proved by the prosecution, then there is sufficient ground for a conviction.

mohanvarghese (Advocate)     05 June 2017

There is nothing in the NI act which differentiate between an ordinary lender and money lenders. The cardinal rule is that the cheque in question should be executed to discharge a legal debt. Once that is proved by the prosecution, then there is sufficient ground for a conviction.

Law Aspire (Legal)     09 June 2017

But not holding of License by the money Lender will make him accused under  Financial & Economic Laws.and this point will be raised in the Court by the defendant
So this needs to be kept in Mind
 

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     11 June 2017

There is a big problem on this issue of money lending 138 cases. One day it will come to the notice of Hon SC and all these cases will be thrown to dustbin. A loan given by unlicensed money lender or by any NBFC or by Bank, cannot have cheque as the security. These guys must be prudent enough to ensure proper mortgageable security, they must realize that at the time of taking loan, the person has no liquid capacity to repay at that moment and they should not become partner in his wishful thinking that his future would be good and he will have money to pay. Its bl**dy nonsense that lacs of cases are instituted by ICICI bank or HDFC bank for EMI cheque (given for loan) dishonor. These banks should be fined for not pursuing civil remedy of recovery.

Law Aspire (Legal)     12 June 2017

Originally posted by : R Trivedi
There is a big problem on this issue of money lending 138 cases.

One day it will come to the notice of Hon SC and all these cases will be thrown to dustbin.

A loan given by unlicensed money lender or by any NBFC or by Bank, cannot have cheque as the security. These guys must be prudent enough to ensure proper mortgageable security, they must realize that at the time of taking loan, the person has no liquid capacity to repay at that moment and they should not become partner in his wishful thinking that his future would be good and he will have money to pay.

Its bl**dy nonsense that lacs of cases are instituted by ICICI bank or HDFC bank for EMI cheque (given for loan) dishonor. These banks should be fined for not pursuing civil remedy of recovery.


EMI Cheques are Security Cheques or something else? and why Banks cant file suit for EMI Cheques


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register