Ram and Son v Singh and Another (C.A. 17/1934.)
Ram and Son v Singh and Another (C.A. 17/1934.) [1935] EACA 42 (1 January 1935)
The appellants, by their own pleading, are general moneylenders and do not fall within the exception of section 2(1)(b) of the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1932. The transaction was a loan secured by a chattels mortgage, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that their business was bona fide confined to lending money on mortgages. Section 10 of the Ordinance requires a separate note or memorandum in writing, signed by the borrower, containing all terms of the contract including the date of the loan. The only document produced was the chattels mortgage, which did not specify the date the loan wa…
Source excerpt
- Moneylending Contracts
- Chattels Mortgage
- Statutory Compliance
- Loan Enforceability