Sajjan Kumar Agarwala Vs Stellar & Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
The Hon’ble Single bench of Calcutta high court in this case was dealing with a situation where the plaintiff claimed outstanding amount of Rs 25 lacs which was paid to the defendants and where the cheque which was given in repayment of loan was dishonoured and upon suit having been filed of recovery of the said sum along with the interest, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff did not had money lending business license under the said Act. The court while examining such plea looked into an aspect that whether the lending was part of any business transaction or it was connected with any business transaction which was not so. The plea regarding limitation was also rejected as the suit was filed within 3 years of the cheque having been bounced. The pleas regarding the Bengal Money Lending Act was rejected on the basis of the decision of the division bench of Calcutta high court in the case of Sitaram Poddar Vs Bhagirath Choudhary 2011 SCCOnline Cal 845 where it was held that one or two occasional transactions of loan doesn’t come within the act of lending under the said Act.
In the case of Sitaram Poddar, the Hon”ble Division Bench of this Court considering several orders passed by various High Courts and Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ka Icilda Wallang –vs- U. Lokeridra Suiam (Dead) by Legal Heirs reported in AIR 1987 SC 2047 and in the case of P. Vaikunta Shenoy & Company –vs- V.P. Had Sharma reported in AIR 2008 SC 416 held that one or two isolated or occasional acts of lending money will not constitute a money lending business. Instances of occasional lending of money even at a remunerative rate of interest are not sufficient to constitute business of money lending.
