1941 Supreme(Cal) 151
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Edgley, J.
Suresh Chandra Mukherjee - Appellant
Versus
Lal Mohun Chatterjee & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-04-1941
The Bengal Moneylenders Act allows relief to debtors even in cases where a decree was passed before 1st January 1939 but not fully satisfied on that date, and empowers the court to release the borrower from liability for interest exceeding the limits specified in the Act under Section 36(1)(c).
Headnote:
Bengal Moneylenders Act - Application for Relief - Sections 2(22), 30, 36 - The court discussed the application of the Bengal Moneylenders Act to a suit filed before 1st January 1939 and the relief available to the borrower under Sections 30 and 36. The court interpreted the provisions of the Act to allow relief to debtors even in cases where a decree was passed before 1st January 1939 but not fully satisfied on that date. The court exercised the power under Section 36(1)(c) to release the borrower from liability for interest exceeding the limits specified in Section 30(1)(ii) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for relief under the Bengal Moneylenders Act, as a final decree passed in a mortgage suit had not been satisfied, and the interest stipulated under the mortgage bond exceeded the limits specified in the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application was maintainable as relating to a suit to which the Act applies, and the petitioner was entitled to relief under Sections 30 and 36 of the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the application under the Bengal Moneylenders Act and the interpretation of Sections 2(22), 30, and 36 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Act to allow relief to debtors even in cases where a decree was passed before 1st January 1939 but not fully satisfied on that date. The court exercised the power under Section 36(1)(c) to release the borrower from liability for interest exceeding the limits specified in Section 30(1)(ii) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court granted relief to the borrower under Section 36(1)(c) of the Bengal Moneylenders Act, releasing the borrower from liability for interest exceeding the limits specified in the Act.
ORDER
Edgley, J. - In this case the petitioner, Lal Mohun Chatterjee, has applied for certain relief under the provisions of Bengal Moneylenders Act, 1940. It appears from his petition that a preliminary decree was passed against him and certain other persons on 19th February 1937. An account was then taken by the learned Registrar who found that the sum of Rs. 26,076-11-9 was due to the mortgagee. The decree was made final for that amount on 14th November 1938 and the mortgaged properties were sold respectively on 30th August 1939 and 6th December 1939. The price realized for the first property was Rs. 6400 and, as regards the second property, the price realized was Rs. 17,000 or in all Rs. 23,400. The sale was confirmed on 16th August 1940. This application originally came before me in Chambers on 6th March 1941, on which occasion Mr. Das on behalf of the opposite party contended that it was not maintainable on the grounds (1) that no application for execution of the decree was pending and (2) that the application could not be treated as an application for review. At that time I was inclined to accept his contentions, but, as the matter raised some important points of law, I thought it desir- able that it should be further considered. The decision with regard to this application involves the construction of certain sections of the Bengal Money-lenders Act and the considerations which arise with reference thereto have now been placed fully before me by learned Counsel on both sides and by Mr. B.C. Ghose as amicus curice.
2. The first point which arises for consideration is whether or not this application relates to a "suit to which this Act applies" within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act. The relevant portion of this Sub-section is in the following terms:
Suit to which this Act applies' means any suit or proceeding instituted or filed on or after the 1st day of January 1939, or pending on that date and includes a proceeding in execution:
(a) for the recovery of a loan advanced before or after the commencement of this Act.
3. Admittedly, the suit with regard to which this application is made was filed before 1st January 1939 and no application for execution is pending with reference thereto. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends however that an application for relief under the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act is-nevertheless maintainable because the final decree passed in the mortgage suit has not yet been satisfied and, from that point of view, the suit must be regarded as 'pending' on 1st January 1939. With this contention I must agree and in fact it is not seriously disputed by Mr. Das on behalf of the opposite party that the application has been made with reference to a "suit to which this Act applies." It might, of course, be argued that a suit cannot be regarded as pending after a final decree has been passed therein and that, in view of the language which has been used in Section 2(22), the Act could not apply in the case of a suit which had been filed and in which a final decree had been obtained before 1st January 1939. At the same time it is clear from the provisions of Section 30, Bengal Moneylenders Act, that the petitioner in the present case is not liable to pay interest in respect of his loan in excess of the amount of 8 per cent. simple. The relevant portion of this section is in the following terms:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any agreement,
(1) No borrower shall be liable to pay after the commencement of this Act.
* * * *
(c) interest at a rate per annum exceeding in the case of
* * * *
(2) Secured loans, eight per cent. simple, whether such loan was advanced or such amount was paid or such decree was passed or such interest accrued before or after the commencement of this Act;
4. In the present case the interest stipulated under the mortgage bond was ten per cent. compou