Madras HC reiterates SC’s ban on advocates doing money lending business with their clients

In Ilakkia Raja v. T. Umamaheswaran, the purpose of filing the present petition was to quash the proceedings taken place by the Judicial Magistrate for the offenses punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.

Respondent, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner as an advocate in a case, cheated him along to the tune of Rs 7 lakhs and also misused the cheque issued by the petitioner and filed a false case against him.

Respondent issued a notice asking the petitioner to repay the cheque amount within a period of 7 days, whereas according to the above-stated Section, the notice period should have been 15 days.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in B. Sunitha v. the State of Telangana, (2018) 1 SCC 638, the bench headed by Justice G.K. Ilathiraiyan held that when there is a specific bar for doing money lending business that too with his own client, the act of the respondents will amount to professional misconduct.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s