Transactions involving loans to traders are expressly exempt from the licensing requirements mandated by the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manan Pandya for learned advocate Mr. S.P.Majmudar for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma for respondent No.1 in First Appeal No. 3001 of 2005 and learned advocate Mr. Apurva Kapadia for respondent No.1 in First Appeal No. 3002 of 2005.

2. These appeals are arising out of the Judgement and Decree passed by the City Civil Judge, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit Nos. 5982 of 2000, 5981 of 2000 and 5970 of 2000.

3. The appellants are the original defendants in the respective suits filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of the money advanced to one M/s. Shree Ambica Flour Milling Corporation-a Partnership firm.

4. The appellants are joined as defendant Nos. 5 and 13 in the respective suits in the capacity of the partners of M/s. Ambica Flour Milling Corporation.

5. Learned Trial Court, by the impugned Judgements and Decrees passed in the respective suits, ordered the defendant No.1-Partnership Firm and its partners to pay jointly and severally the amount of claim in each suit with interest @12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment and proportionate cost to the plaintiffs.

6. Summary of the suits amount claimed by the plaintiffs, name of the plaintiffs is tabulated as under:

7. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Pandya for the appellants has made following submissions in respect of each of the First Appeal on behalf of the appellants:

First Appeal No. 3001/2005:-

(I) It was submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered that the appellant No.2-original defendant No.13 retired on 09.03.200 which is emerging from the Exhibit-18 and Exhibit-113 but the money was landed by the plaintiff on 02.05.2000 and 09.05.2000, as stated in Paragraph No. 3 of the Plaint and therefore, the appellant No.2-original defendant No.13 should not be held liable for recovery of the money landed post retirement date.

(ii) It was submitted that without prejudiced to the other grounds that the Trial Court has not considered the admission of the plaintiff in the cross-examination that amount of Rs. 2 Lakh was only advanced on 09.05.2000 and further admission that interest was charged @21% without there being any written agreement and plaintiff does not have the money lenders license. Reference was made to Exhibit-120.

(iii) It was further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have considered that the plaintiff is doing the business of money lending without license and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the provisions of section 2(9), 2(10), 2(18) and section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, to submit that the amount advanced by the plaintiff falls under the definition of “loan” and the plaintiff being a proprietorship is money lender and therefore, as per section 10 without license of money lending, the suit is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Ramanlal Punjalal Shah vs. Pari Sulabhbhai Haribhai reported in 1994 (2) GLR 147.

(iv) Learned advocate Mr. Manan Pandya also submitted that the plaintiff has only produced balance sheets and entries from the Books of Accounts without there being any