Smt. Sudha Kankaria Vs Smt. Bhavya Bothra (Calcutta High Court)
Money Recovery Suit Dismissed Because Lender Failed to Produce Licence Under Bengal Money Lenders Act; Calcutta HC Relies on Income Tax Returns to Hold Plaintiff Was Engaged in Money-Lending Business; Earlier Admission About Licence Requirement Operated as Res Judicata; Money Recovery Decree Set Aside Because Plaintiff Admitted Applying for Money-Lending Licence: Calcutta HC
In, the appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenged a trial court decree passed in a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced. The appellant contended that the respondent was carrying on money-lending business within the meaning of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 and had failed to produce the mandatory licence required under the Act.
The appellant relied on earlier orders dated 16.11.2023 and 07.05.2024 passed during the suit proceedings. In those proceedings, the respondent had admitted that an application for grant of money-lending licence under the 1940 Act had been filed and was pending. The appellant argued that these findings had attained finality since no appeal had been filed against those orders and therefore operated as res judicata at subsequent stages of the same proceeding.
The respondent argued that she was not a money lender within the meaning of the Act and that a solitary transaction of lending money to an acquaintance could not amount to carrying on money-lending business. Reliance was placed on Sitaram Poddar vs. Bhagirath Chouchary to contend that continuous lending transactions to diverse persons were necessary to attract the rigours of the Act.
