IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Dhruv Surana – Petitioner
Versus
Surendra Singh Bengani – Respondent
IA No. GA 1 of 2021 In CS 12 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of loan and repayment terms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding loan validity and licenses. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. judicial analysis on maintainability and admissions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's reasoning on trailable issues. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 5. final order and decree issued. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna Rao, J.)
1. The plaintiff has filed the present application praying for final judgment upon admission for a sum of Rs. 49,45,548/-. The plaintiff has filed the suit being CS No. 12 of 2021 praying for following reliefs:
(b) Interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 15 % per annum.”
2. The plaintiff in his plaint contended that the defendant having long time acquaintance with the plaintiff and sometimes in the last week of October, 2016, the defendant approached the plaintiff for one time financial accommodation of Rs. 35,00,000/- for his business purpose. Pursuant to the discussion between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs. 35 lakhs to the defendant, as a short time financial accommodation which shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum and the defendant shall repay the said loan amount within a period of three months of demand of such refund.
3. The plaintiff relying upon the assurance of the defendant had initially lent in advance an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the defendant on October 24, 2016 by way of a cheque being No. 369271 drawn on J and K Bank, Kolkata and the same was received by the defendant through Axis Bank. On receipt of the said amount, the defendant had executed a Promissory Note by confirming the receipt of the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs on October 24, 2016. The plaintiff has paid further an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on January 13, 2017 by way of cheque being No. 369276 drawn on J & K Bank, Kolkata and the same was duly received by the defendant through Axis Bank.
4. The defendant had issued confirmation of accounts for the period April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 and from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. As promised by the defendant, the defendant has paid interest to the plaintiff from October 24, 2016 to March 31, 2018 and lastly the interest was paid on June 27, 2018 uptil March 31, 2018.
5. The defendant had requested the plaintiff that he is facing financial crisis and requested the plaintiff to extend the period of repayment of loan for a further period of one year and promised to return the loan amount on or before March 31, 2019 along with interest but subsequently the defendant defaulted in making payment inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sent notice through an advocate calling upon the defendant for making payment but the defendant failed to make any payment or any part thereof.
6. Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the claim made by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant which is evident from the following document :
b. Promissory note issued by the defendant dated October 24, 2016 for an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.
c. Confirmation of accounts issued by the defendant to the plaintiff from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 and April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 showing receipt of amount of Rs. 35 lakhs and interest payable to the plaintiff.
7. Mr. Mitra relied upon the following judgments :
ii. 2018 SCC OnLine BOM 19972 (Bipin Vazirani –vs-V. Raheja Design Construction Private Limited & Anr.).
iii. AIR 2021 Cal 212 ( Prabha Surana –vs- Jaideep Halwasiya ).
iv. (2020) SCC OnLine Cal 2123 ( Ajay Kumar Agarwal – vs- Green Conc
Astrex Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. –vs- Surendra Singh Bengani
Barnwall Marketing & Ors. –vs-Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. (Mrs.) Shabbir Fatima & Others –vs- The Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Others.
Himani Alloys Limited –vs-Tata Steel Ltd.
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited –vs- Hubtown Limited
J.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. –vs- ANE Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. –vs- Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr.
Nagubai Ammal & Others –vs- B. Shama Rao & Ors.
Prabha Surana –vs- Jaideep Halwasiya
Sitaram Poddar –vs- Bhagirath Choudhary
United Bank of India -vs- Nederlandsche Standard Bank
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. –vs- United Bank of India & Ors.
A single isolated instance of lending money does not constitute a money-lending business requiring a license under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940.
A court can pass Judgment and Decree on admission based on admissions made by a party, even if the defendant raises a defence, if the defence is insufficient or illusory.
A party seeking judgment on admission must demonstrate clear and unequivocal admissions, and failure to establish a prima facie case precludes injunction relief.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'commercial dispute' and 'service' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the relevance of the Bengal Money Lenders Ac....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.