IN THE HIGH comm' cm KARNATAKz§....__"'
CIRCUIT BENCH A'? DHARWAD '
DATED mis THE 23% DAYMQF ApR11;~2:t>ja9"'f 4- _ _: "
BEFC}RE .__ ' _
THE 1~i0N='BLE MR.JUSTi.€3E.__.VS. i§".A.$AT';'Ar;;§Rg§:f;§sN3§;
CIVIL REVISION PE'1*1'1VI"*I<*..w.'flIV_~I'_____._*~.I;V<::.2V2i::e.'é;
BETWEER: . _ %
M] s KLS Financc as Inve:VV$;t1i1*.:Vni;3 -Lid: 1 .,
Having its 1~eg1'st£:;t'v<2d ofifice 'at~:; _ ' - '
KLS Co:e;3.p1ex;_'VBacii, _
Hospet, " ' V' " '
ReprcseI1tei$_b3;f i§:s Man
1:. ;;.__ ,
_ PETI'I'i0NER
(By Smt. V; T'¢'1;:1ya,v'fo1* Sri, Raghavcndra Rao, ADV)
AND:
1. E' ' Nazec-3flAh$mcd, S/0 S. Abdui Basid,
" Agé:d_abou"t' 56___§g¢a;cs,
. V S*si~pci'vj_sor Grade» 1, TSP Ltd.
Q1ia1i§:r$..No.15, Oflfiai Colony,
' RE... Hospct, Bellaxy Dist.
2; Békfnkfibas s/'0 David Raj,
about 58 ycam, TSP Ltd.
{jgurartcrs No.15, Ofiixial Colony,
A' TB Dam, Ho-spat, Eellary Dist. ...RESPC)NDEI'~¥'I'S
This (ER? is filed US 13 ofliamataka Smali Causes Courts Act,
to set aside the judgment & decree passed by the iemned Principal
' "Civil Judge (Sf. Ba) &3MFC, hospet, in my :1c:.41f08 dated S.2.20fl9, and
$0.
The CRPceming on fart admission this day, are cam'! éeiivered the
following:
ORDER
This revision is filed against the by ..
trial court in respect of an un1egis*!§:red.._’$}j_if”i;1.:
filed by the petitioner hcre§:a.4_ seeiiing’ t’ecoy,ze;y. :61′; *’
amount fmm the respondent _ It tizat the
plaintifi is a : j1£aVes1@ei1fVvv company
registereé under the activity of
the Company;~vis’:§%r:{-éésiné its The case of
the herein had taken
a colour the. plaintiff petitioner and since he
failed te’ paj,-*VVmQ11ey*:a1*s it became {me the said suit
for ;ecqve1’§ iéase amount was instimted. The
. V. Qfiiee :,f'(;f “flie below rasised objeetimz regarding
the said suit stating that the transaction
of Company is that of money lending and the
éeemgany should mmish the certificate issued by the
cqliigaetent authority for éoing money leading business by
gkhe plaintifil The said trmmgstered suit was piaced before
court to hear regarding maintainability and the court below
after hearing the Co1m${:2 for the appellant has come to the
W
conclusion that there is violation in terms of
under section mo) of the Money Legiers Am’ ‘A
herein and as such the suit filed
respondent herein is not m.ai:1t”a__i11abIe,_
2. Hearé the leaxneti” the .-tiaetiticxzer.
Pemsed the order. It raised by the
Oficc: of the com belcfvtttié’ below also
has for deciding the
by the petitioner herein.
As ctfitid ._ ‘pleadéngs the activity of the
petiti<)I1ei"V..i::'§ to .3330} to lend the same on him
basie' and to Voczkctthizf-;: charges. It is not their case that the
~ defe1§éecé't bcncttted money for purchase ofTV. What is
fmm the defendant is only hire '
c1:ts:1fgesy Atnot recovery of £0311 amount. Under the
"»ciIt:zJ.m.s§té2nces, there was no reascm for the court below to
for itself that the transaction between p1:a1'nt:ifi' and
hvvcflfefenciant is in the nature of money tending. Hence, the
same is zecguireci to be set aside in this revision petiticn.
'M1
3. Accordingly, the crder passed by
zmgaxwdiilg maintainability of the suit in _
5.2.09 is set aside. The Trial is -:’:o ‘gm:
suit and procead with the suit on its ‘météts.
sum