SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1589

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Mr. Jai Kumar Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Mr. Virendra Singh Bengani.

Headnote:(A) Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 - Suit for recovery of loan - Maintainability of suit challenged on grounds of absence of lending license - Court held that isolated instances of lending do not constitute money-lending business, relying on precedents regarding business definitions. (Paras 15, 16, 22, 24)

(B) Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Judgment on admissions - Admission by defendant regarding receipt of loan amount and promissory note establishes liability. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 49,45,548/- as the defendant defaulted on a loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- provided for business purposes and acknowledged through promissory notes and confirmation of accounts. Defendant claimed inability to pay due to lack of a money-lender license.

Findings of Court:
Court found no basis for the defendant's claim that the plaintiff required a license to lend money, as the plaintiff did not engage in money-lending business as defined by law.

Issues: The primary issues were the claim of maintainability of the suit due to absence of a lending license and whether an admission of debt was established.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff's lending was not a business subject to licensing requirements, affirming the principle that isolated lending instances do not render one a money-lender as per statutory definitions.

Result: Application granted; judgment for the plaintiff.

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:

    “(a) Decree for a sum of Rs. 49,45,548/- as pleaded in paragraph 15 hereof;

    (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 :

    a. Two cheques being No. 369271 dated October 24, 2016 for Rs. 25 lakhs and cheque No. 369276 dated January 13, 2017 for Rs. 10 lakhs total amounting to Rs. 35 lakhs both drawn on J and K Bank, Kolkata which was duly received in the bank of defendant i.e. Axis Bank.

    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 :

    “i. (2011) 2 CHN 969 (Sitaram Poddar –vs- Bhagirath Choudhary).

    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

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top