IMPORTANT POINT
Engaging in the business of money lending without a license under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 renders the lender ineligible for obtaining a decree for loan recovery.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No. 3 of 2023 in C.S. No. 142 of 2021 praying for judgment and decree upon admission. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for a decree for sum of Rs. 9,99,97,678/-along with interest.

2. The plaintiff says that the defendant has unconditionally and unequivocally admitted and acknowledged the amount claimed by the plaintiff. He submits that the defendant confirmed the accounts showing outstanding dues for the period 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The plaintiff says that it is clear from the admissions made in the pleadings and otherwise as well as the submissions made on behalf of the defendant that the defendant has admitted the jural relationship between the parties.

3. The plaintiff relied upon the statement of account bearing No. 910010017274507 with the Axis Bank Ltd., Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 wherein on diverse dates from 6th May, 2015 to 27th December, 2018, the plaintiff has transferred an amount of Rs. 6,84,01,288/-to the defendant either by way of RTGS or NEFT.

4. The plaintiff has also relied upon the confirmation of accounts for the Financial Year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-2018 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff from time to time. The plaintiff says that the confirmation of accounts issued by the defendant clearly shows that the defendant owes to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 6,77,51,288/-.

5. The plaintiff says that the Ledger Account of the defendant in his books of accounts which squarely matches with the transaction shown by the defendant in the confirmation of accounts issued by the defendant. Plaintiff says that the plaintiff further advanced the accommodation loan to the defendant a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-during the Financial Year 2018-19 and thus the defendant is liable to pay total sum of Rs. 6,84,01,288/-.

6. That plaintiff says that plaintiff has also sent notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the amount along with interest but inspite of receipt of notice neither the defendant has returned the amount nor has sent any reply to the said notice. The plaintiff says that there is no other material question between the parties, which this Court may require to determine at this stage.

7. The defendant says that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of money lending within the State of West Bengal and thus the business of the plaintiff comes within the purview of the definition of “Money-Lender” as defined under Section 2(13) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. The defendant says that the plaintiff is in the business of money lending and the plaintiff has instituted several proceedings before this Court against several persons or entity for recovery of money.

8. The defendant says that the plaintiff has initiated several cases involving financial or monitory matters including money lent and advance which prove that the claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is not a single isolated instance of the money lending. The defendant says that the conduct of the plaintiff shows that the money lending activity of the plaintiff is systematic, regular, repetitive and continuous one and the same has being done by the plaintiff in order to generate revenue by way of interest.

9. The defendant says that as per Section 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, no court shall pass a decree or order in favour of the money lender for recovery of loan advance unless the Court is satisfied that at the time of such loan or any part thereof was advance, the money lender has an effective money lending license. The defendant says that in the present case, the plaintiff is not having any money lending license.

10. The defendant says that it was not possible for the defendant to return the amount to the plaintiff in one go and a meeting was held between the plaintiff and the defendant on 20th February, 2018 wherein the defendant agreed to transfer the land at Kasba, measuring an area of 10 Katha