Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Sudha Kankaria – Appellant
Versus
Bhavya Bothra – Respondent
APDT No. 2 of 2026, CS No. 162 of 2020, IA No. GA/1 of 2026
Decided On : 18-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal against the trial court's money recovery decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the respondent's status as a money lender under the 1940 act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. procedural history and the binding nature of prior court findings on license requirements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. application of res judicata to findings made at different stages of the same proceeding. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. statutory necessity of holding a money lending license under section 13 of the act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. duty of courts to dismiss unlicensed money lender claims at the threshold. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. final order setting aside the decree and dismissing the original suit due to lack of license. (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. The appeal is at the behest of the defendant and directed against the judgment and decree dated December 17, 2025 passed in CS 162 of 2020.
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Trial Judge, decreed the suit filed for recover of money lent and advanced.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the respondent is a money lender within the meaning of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. He submits that, the issue as to whether or not the respondent is a money lender within the meaning of the Act, 1940 was decided by the learned Trial Judge. He refers to the order dated November 16, 2023 passed in IA GA 1 of 2021 being application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also, the order dated May 7, 2024 passed in the suit.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that in the application for judgment on admission, being IA GA 1 of 2021, learned Trial Judge noted the stand of the respondent in the affidavit in reply in such application that, the respondent applied for grant of license under the Act of 1940 and that, the same was yet to be received by the respondent. In view of such admission made by the respondent as plaintiff in the affidavit in reply learned Trial Judge, refused to pass a decree on admission as prayed for by the respondent as the plaintiff. He submits that, no appeal was carried against the order dated November 16, 2023.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the order dated May 7, 2024 and submits that the respondent as the plaintiff admitted that, it applied for grant of license under the Act of 1940 and did not receive the same till the date of such order. The respondent as the plaintiff invited the Court to pass direction upon the concerned authority under the Act of 1940 to dispose of the application for grant of license by imposing penalty upon the respondent.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, no license under the Act of 1940 was tendered in evidence and marked as exhibit. He submits that, in absence of a license being produced under the Act of 1940 the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1940 would stand attracted. He submits that, the suit was required to be dismissed by the learned Trial Judge, upon the respondent as the plaintiff not producing the license within the time as allowed by the learned Trial Judge by the orders dated November 16, 2023 and May 7, 2024.
7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the issue as to whether or not, the respondent is a money lender was decided. Therefore such issue could not be reopened on the principles of res judicata. He submits that, the issue of res judicata applies at different stages type of the same proceedings. In support of such contention, he relies upon [Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 787].
8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant refers to exhibits G and G1. He submits that those exhibits are returns filed by the respondent before the Income Tax Authorities. He draws the attention of the Court to the columns of adv
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.
Engaging in the business of money lending without a license under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 renders the lender ineligible for obtaining a decree for loan recovery.
Civil Court decree upholding sale-deed as absolute sale binds Money Lending Act authorities via res judicata; transaction not money-lending without proven interest, essential for 'loan' definition.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a money lender without a license is barred from maintaining a suit under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
