JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CS (OS) 160/20202 & I.A.8211/2020 (of defendants u/O-XXXVII R-3(5)

of CPC) & I.A.8213/2020 (of defendants u/O VII R-11(d) of CPC)

1. The present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the CPC, claiming the principal amount of Rs.3,20,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from September, 2018 to May, 2020, the date of the filing of the suit, totalling Rs.4,86,66,570/-.

2. Summons in the suit were issued on 6th July, 2020 and defendants were directed to maintain status quo with regard to title and possession of the property bearing No. E-139, 1st Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.

3. I.A. No. 8211/2020 has been filed on behalf of the defendants seeking leave to defend and I.A No. 8213/2020 has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. Pleadings have duly been completed in the aforesaid applications.

4. The present suit has been filed on the basis of the following pleadings: (i) The plaintiff is a practicing advocate before the Supreme Court of India.

(ii) The defendant, Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, was known to the plaintiff for 20 years. The defendant is represented through his legal heirs viz Sh Meera Anand (wife), Mansi (daughter), Nidhi Bhasin (Daughter) and Sh.

Gautam Anand (son).

(iii) On 8th February, 2016, a loan of Rs.3,20,00,000/- was given by the plaintiff to Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, through a bank transfer to his bank account in HDFC Bank Limited. The said loan was to be used by the Late Sh. Hari Om Anand for commercial purposes for the expansion of his business.

(iv) Till September, 2018, Late Sh. Hari Om Anand paid interest to the paintiff towards the said amount of loan.

(v) A cheque dated 27th March, 2019 for Rs.3,20,00,000/- was given by Late Sh. Hari Om Anand to the plaintiff towards repayment of the said loan. (vi) Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured by the bankers of the Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, on the ground of “insufficient funds”.

(vii) On 6th April, 2019, the plaintiff sent a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Late Sh. Hari Om Anand did not reply to the said notice.

(viii) The plaintiff filed a Criminal Complaint Case No.6371/2019 before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the NI Act.

(ix) On 16th November, 2019, a demand notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff to Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, demanding the principal amount of Rs.3,20,00,000/- plus interest. Late Sh. Hari Om Anand duly received the said notice. However, he failed to reply to the same.

(x) Accordingly, the present suit has been filed.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has raised the following grounds for seeking leave to defend:

(i) The present suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff is not registered under the provisions of Punjab Registration of Money Lender’s Act, 1938 ( Punjab Act).

(ii) No documents have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to show that the aforementioned amount was given as a loan.

6. In support of his submission regarding non-registration under the Punjab Act, the counsel for the defendant places reliance on Sections 2(7), 2(8) and 3 of the Punjab Act. He submits that the transaction, which is the subject matter of the present suit, is a loan covered under Section 2(8) of the Punjab Act and therefore, Section 3 of the Punjab Act would apply and no suit could be filed on behalf of the plaintiff, on account of non-fulfilment of conditions prescribed in Section 3 of the Punjab Act. He places reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajat Jain v. Neeta Gupta, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8695, to contend that the plaintiff was in the business of money lending and therefore, the provisions of the Punjab Act would apply. He also relies on the gazette notification to contend that the Punjab Act is applicable to NCT of Delhi. Reliance has also been placed on three