For a loan to be classified under The Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, isolated transactions are insufficient without a consistent money lending business; absence of a license does not bar recovery if the lender is not a professional money lender.

JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1.This is a suit for recovery of money.

2. The sum and substance of the plaint case may be summarized as follows:

a) The Plaintiff is a house-wife and over a period of time has earned and accumulated funds.

b) The Defendant, having long-time acquaintance with the Plaintiff and sought for one time loan accommodation in the first week of the month of April 2014 for business purpose.

c) Pursuant to discussions between the parties herein they agreed on 09/04/2014 that the Plaintiff shall provide a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- as a short time financial accommodation. The Defendant agreed to pay interest at a rate of 15% per annum from time to time. The loan should be repayable within three months of the demand of such refund by the Plaintiff.

d) The agreement arose at 87, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013 within jurisdiction of this Court.

e) Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement the Plaintiff transferred the loan amount by electronic transfer through RTGS on 09/04/2014.

f) The Plaintiff demanded repayment in the last week of the month of December, 2016 along with accrued interest by 31/03/2017. The Defendant requested extension of time to repay till 30/11/2017 and promised to repay the same. The Plaintiff accepted the proposal and extended time for repayment till 30/11/2017. The Defendant thereafter paid interests from 01/04/2017 to 31/07/2017. Again the Defendant approached the Plaintiff in the month of October 2017 and requested for further extension of time till 31^st March, 2018. The Plaintiff refused to accept the same and requested the defendant to return the principal along with accrued interest for the period 01/08/2017 to 30/11/2017. In spite of the request of the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid interest for the period 01/08/2017 to 30/11/2017 by cheque, but failed to repay the principal amount.

g) The Defendant however failed to repay the aforesaid loan with interest particulars of the demand of the Plaintiff is given below:

PARTICULARS

h) The Plaintiff, on being constrained, instituted the instant suit praying for recovery of a sum of Rs.36,25,000/- with interest at a rate of 15% per annum.

3. The Defendant appeared in the suit and contested the same by filing written statement. Specific pleas taken in the written statement may be summarized as follows:

a) The suit is instituted for recovery of money alleged to have been paid on account of the loan to the Defendant. The Plaintiff in affidavit-in-reply in connection with GA 1 of 2021 specifically stated that she has no licence or had no licence under The Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 and she is taking steps to obtain such licence. Till date, no such licence has been disclosed. In view of Section 13 of The Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 the suit cannot be proceeded with and decree cannot be passed.

b) The Defendant denied any acquaintance with the Plaintiff.

c) It was averred Para. 11 that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of interest, as such, the question of paying any interest for the period 01/04/2017 t0 31/07/2017 does not and cannot arise at all. The payments were all along made on account of principle since there was no agreement for payment of interest.

d) The Defendant denied all other allegations contained in the plaint. On the basis of rival pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the Plaintiff had advanced a loan for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) to the Defendant herein for three months?

2. Whether the said loan was repayable along with interest at the rate of 15% per an