9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to relief u/s 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. 2. Definition and applicability of the term "borrower" and "loan" under the Act. 3. Examination of whether the transaction in question is in substance a loan. Summary: Issue 1: Entitlement to Relief u/s 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act The primary issue is whether the appellants are entitled to relief u/s 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act (Bengal Act 10 of 1940). Section 30 states that no borrower shall be liable to pay any sum in excess of twice the principal of the original loan. The appellants contended that they are borrowers and are being made to pay in excess of this limit. The question is whether the amount they are liable to pay is in respect of a loan within the meaning of the Act. Issue 2: Definition and Applicability of "Borrower" and "Loan" The term "borrower" is defined u/s 2(2) of the Act as a person to whom a loan is advanced. The term "loan" is defined u/s 2(12) of the Act as an advance of money or in kind made on condition of repayment with interest and includes any transaction which is in substance a loan. The appellants needed to establish that they are borrowers and that the transaction in question is a loan. Issue 3: Examination of Whether the Transaction is in Substance a Loan The litigation began in 1923, and the proceedings have been numerous. The respondent purchased a property in Howrah and later agreed to sell it to the appellants. The purchase was not completed promptly, leading to a suit for specific performance, which was compromised, resulting in a decree. The appellants argued that the decree amount should be considered a loan. However, the Court found no evidence of an agreement converting the unpaid purchase money into a loan. The compromise decree did not alter the intrinsic nature of the moneys due; they remained unpaid purchase moneys and were not converted into a loan. The appellants referred to two High Court decisions to support their contention, but the Court found these cases unhelpful. In Fateh Chand Mahesri v. Akimuddin Chaudhury, the Court held that the transaction was a loan based on the facts and circumstances, including the treatment of the unpaid purchase money as a loan in the accounts. In Nirode Barani Debya v. Sisir Kumar Mukherjee, the Court found the transaction to be a loan based on the treatment of the purchase money as paid off and the amount due as a loan. However, in the present case, there was no evidence of such treatment. Conclusion The appellants could not establish that they are borrowers or that the transaction was a loan. Therefore, they are not entitled to any benefit u/s 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
