no govt license to carry prawn /money lending -no 138 ni act



The complainant in the present case, is a money lender who had advanced loan to the accused on the basis

of the two promissory notes dated 3.2.2006 and 8.4.2006 respectively for loan of Rs. 18,000/ and Rs. 19,000/

respectively, at interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum. It is thus case of the complainant that the accused

had issued cheque No. 767789 drawn upon Canara Bank, Sadar Bazar, Nagpur for Rs. 40,000/ towards

repayment of loan amount and interest. Thus, it was incumbent upon the complainant to establish the fact that

she held valid money lending license in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946

for the relevant period of the transaction. The complainantmoney lender did not produce such a valid money

lending license at the time when complaint was instituted nor till it is decided although required. Furthermore,

no such valid money lender's license is produced even during pendency of this Appeal. Section 10 of the

Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 runs thus:

Attached File : 18 18 money lender licence negotiable instruments act.doc downloaded 279 times

Now the disputed question is whether one transection will also need money lenders liecsense.


Hello Sir,

FIL gang forged my mother's signature on a promissory note and filed private case in a civil court based on that court gave injection order based on the fake promissory note(how is it possible).
based on the injection order FIL gang people anounced in the town saying that "no one should buy the house".
The witness people all are their people only. There is no material evidance unless the forged promissory note.
they are telling they know me but i don't even know anyone of them. in their explanation they have mentioned that they asked my mother many times for the money which is false.
is there any possibility to ask for police enquiry about he Forged Promissory Note

actually my lawyer submitted explanation saying that there was a 498A background for this case.. it is a forged promissory note... and filed a petition to send the pronote for expert verification..

judge asked the opposit lawyer to bring their witness for cross examining..
they did not attend to the court for 8 times(for 1 year)
finally my lawyer asked the judge to issue warrent for them

after all the witnesses attended and gave their statement saying that we don't know her and we can't recognize her now.

Statement:- "while we were going home after work they asked me to sign on the promissory note"
Fake Promissory Note Persion Statement: "my father and her husband were studied 10th class in same school. Now they both died"
(around there was no transport facility, in 1960 there was no 10th class. their village & my father villages and quite far 300 kms, no way to know each other )

There is a False Case or a loop hole in the Civil Law.
Let say some one forged your Signature on a Promissory Note and filed a private complaint saying
that you borrowed some money from him.
In the Private complaint they have given Written statement to the Judge that
1) You already known Person to them (never mention... then know you or not)
2) The Promissory Note was written at their house.
3) They asked you many Times(You have given Irresponsible Answers to them)
4) FIL gang didn't attend for 1 year to the Court

My Lawyer Asked the judge to send the Promissory Note for Forensic Verification.
they don't want to send for Forensic verification
For that they have explanation saying that Todays signature will be different from the date of Promissory Note signature and asking the judge to do justice infavour to them
all people know that FIL gang doing all these things just to harass my family

Does the money lender need any license?

Thanks in Advance


kindly insist upon the court with application for expert opinion and examination of   alleged document.so also move application under section 340 crpc against the   so called gang  for prosection for defrudinf the courtand submitting false fabricated caseon the basis of  forged document



 not necessary  to defend cases of ni act burdeen of proof lie upon drawer of cheque  that chequehas not been given by him to discharge his liabilities.INOTHER WORDS  ACCUSED HAVE TO PROVE HIMSELF INNOCENT

Chief Lawyer

Thanks for the post on NI 138 Jurisdiction Adv Janardhana Reddy garu---Adv Ram Prasad, Vijayawada Cell: +91-91777-22930. Plz leave me ur contact.




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



IPC Grand Course     |    x