IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Misra, J.
SMT. PARVATI DEVI - APPELLANT
Versus
RAGHABDAS BANERJEE - RESPONDENT
First Appeal No. 105 of 1967
Decided On : 02-08-1971
MONEY LENDING - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - SECTION 8 OF THE ORISSA MONEY LENDERS ACT - INTERPRETATION - REGULAR COURSE OF MONEY-LENDING BUSINESS - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - LOAN ADVANCED BY MONEY-LENDER - REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT - ADMISSIBILITY OF PROMISSORY NOTE - CONSIDERATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-Appellant filed a suit against the Defendant-Respondent to recover a loan of Rs. 5,000/- advanced on 21.8.1962, along with interest. The Defendant denied receiving the loan and claimed that the Plaintiff was a money lender and the suit was not maintainable under Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Ext. 1 (the suit document) was not admissible in evidence as a promissory note, was not supported by consideration, and that the Plaintiff was not a money lender. On appeal, the High Court held that Ext. 1 was not a promissory note and was admissible in evidence, that consideration passed under Ext. 1, but the suit was not maintainable under Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act as the Plaintiff was a money lender carrying on regular course of money-lending business and was not registered under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Ext. 1 is a promissory note and inadmissible in evidence? 2. Whether Ext. 1 is supported by consideration? 3. Whether the Plaintiff is a money-lender and the maintainability of the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Ext. 1 does not satisfy the definition of a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as it lacks an unconditional undertaking to pay on demand and does not specify the payee. It is an acknowledgment of receipt of money with an agreement to repay within a stipulated period. 2. The Defendant executed Ext. 1 and received the consideration of Rs. 5,000/- thereunder. The Defendant's subsequent conduct, including receiving a lawyer's notice demanding repayment and taking receipts from intermediaries, is inconsistent with his plea of not receiving consideration. 3. The Plaintiff was a money lender carrying on regular course of money-lending business at the time of advancing the loan. She had a history of advancing loans to various individuals, and the loans carried interest. The suit loan was advanced in the regular course of her money-lending business.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the suit was not maintainable under Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act since the Plaintiff was a money lender carrying on regular course of money-lending business and was not registered under the Act.
JUDGMENT :
A. Misra, J. - The Plaintiff-Appellant's case is that the Defendant being in need of money borrowed Rs. 5, 000/- from her on 21.8.1962 and Executed the suit document agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs. 40/- per thousand within one month from the date of The loan. In spite of repeated demands, as the Defendant failed to repay The amount, the present suit was instituted.
2. The Defendant denied to have incurred the loan. According to him, the Plaintiff, Srimati Bhanumati Devi and Srimati Chandramukhi Devi, wife of Shri Y.N. Singh, M.P. were Directors of the C.T.C. Company (Private) Limited, of which, Sri L.M. Kalo was the Works Manager and Power-of attorney bolder and Shri Hariram Singh alias Indu Babu was The Supervisor. Sometime in August, 1962, Shri Y.N. Singh who was at Delhi being in great need of money pressed upon the employees of The company to send him some amount. When Shri Kalo and Hariram Singh approached the Defendant, he pleaded inability to advance any amount. Thereupon, the said two employees of the company induced the Defendant to execute a note on 21.8.1962 and concealing the real facts obtained Rs. 5.000/- from the Plaintiff. He denies to have received any part of the consideration. Subsequently, after receipt of notice from the Plaintiff, when be approached Shri Kalo and Shri Hariram Singh, they assured that no Action would be taken against him and granted two receipts showing purported repayment of the loan with interest. He further pleads that the present suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.
3. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial Court recorded the following findings : (1) The Defendant Executed the suit document (Ext. 1); (2) Ext. 1 being a promissory note is not admissible in evidence; (3) Ext. 1 is not supported by consideration and (4) the Plaintiff is not a money-lender, and as such, Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act is no bar to the maintainability of the suit. On the aforesaid findings the suit was dismissed.
4. Learned Counsel for Appellant has urged the following points : (1) the Trial Court bas committed a grave error in holding that Ext. 1 is not admissible in evidence construing the same as a promissory note and (2) it has erred in its finding that Ext. 1 is not supported by consideration. On The other hand, the Defendant-Respondent, while supporting the above two findings of the trial Court, contends that even if the Appellant succeeds on the two points urged by him, the suit is not maintainable, in view of Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act and the finding that the Plaintiff is not a money lender is erroneous.
5. The three points that arise for determination in this appeal are : (1) Whether Ext. 1 is a promissory note, and as such, inadmissible in evidence; (2) Whether it is Supported by consideration and (3) whether the Plaintiff is a money-lender and the maintainability of the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.
6. Point No. 1- The trial Court by construing the contents of the suit document marked Ext. 1 bas held it to be a promissory note, and as such, inadmissible in evidence under the proviso (a) to Section 35 of The Stamp Act. For the purpose of construing the nature of Ext. 1, the trial Court bad first tested whether it satisfies the definition of the expression ?bond' as defined in Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act., and as it does not fulfill the requirements of The aforementioned definition, it has held it to be a promissory note. Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act defines promissory note as follows:
Promissory note means a promissory note as defined by The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881).
Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act runs as follows:
4. A ?promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being 8 bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, ascertain person,
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.