9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application of summary suit procedure in a suit governed by the Bombay Money-lenders Act of 1946. Analysis: The respondents filed a summary suit on a promissory note, and the petitioners were given conditional leave to defend upon depositing a sum of money. The main contention was whether the summary suit procedure is applicable to a suit governed by the Bombay Money-lenders Act. The Act imposes duties on money-lenders regarding accounts and statements. Section 21 of the Act mandates the Court to decide if the money-lender complied with these provisions before deciding the claim. Section 29 further requires the Court to reopen transactions, reduce excessive interest, and pass decrees if the money-lender received more than due. Section 30 allows debtors to apply for account declarations. The conflict arises as the summary suit procedure under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code restricts the defendant's ability to defend, leading to potential inconsistencies with the Money-lenders Act. The Court highlighted the inconsistency between the summary suit procedure and the obligations under the Money-lenders Act. In a summary suit, if the defendant fails to comply with conditions, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree without considering the Act's provisions. The Court rejected the argument that the Act's requirements could be fulfilled even in the defendant's absence, as the summary procedure restricts the defendant's defense rights. The Court emphasized that the Act's mandatory duties on the Court cannot be fulfilled if the defendant is not given leave to defend, rendering the summary suit procedure incompatible with the Act's provisions. A previous decision was cited where a defendant failed to comply with conditions but sought relief under Section 30 of the Act. The Court held that the defendant's substantive right under Section 30 should not be negated by the summary suit procedure. However, the Court distinguished Section 30 from Sections 21 and 29, which impose mandatory duties on the Court itself, irrespective of the defendant's actions. The Court disagreed with the argument that Order XXXVII could apply to suits under the Money-lenders Act, emphasizing the Act's primacy in such cases. In conclusion, the Court set aside the previous order and granted unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the suit, emphasizing that the summary suit procedure should not apply to suits governed by the Bombay Money-lenders Act. The Court's decision prioritized the Act's provisions over the summary suit procedure to ensure the proper application of the law.
|
