1961 (9) TMI 105 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
- Whether the suit of a plaintiff money lender is liable to be dismissed if he does not hold a registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into.
- Whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff-money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to a period subsequent to the money-lending transactions.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Requirement of Registration Certificate at the Time of Transaction
The court examined whether a money lender must possess a registration certificate at the time of the transaction to maintain a suit for recovery. The court noted that the Central Provinces and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934, as amended, does not explicitly declare loans made by unregistered moneylenders as void. The court observed that the Act primarily aims at regulating the moneylending business for revenue purposes rather than invalidating individual transactions. The court cited various precedents, including *Johnson v. Hudson* and *Cope v. Rowlands*, which distinguish between statutory penalties intended for revenue protection and those implying prohibition of contracts. The court concluded that the absence of a registration certificate at the time of the transaction does not invalidate the loan.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of Producing a Registration Certificate During Pendency of the Suit
The court further analyzed whether producing a registration certificate during the pendency of the suit would suffice. Section 11-H of the Act states that no suit for the recovery of a loan shall proceed unless the court is satisfied that the moneylender holds a valid registration certificate. The court interpreted the term "valid" as referring to the time when the suit is about to proceed, not necessarily at the time of the transaction. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was not to invalidate transactions but to ensure compliance with registration requirements for revenue purposes. The court held that it is sufficient if the moneylender produces a valid registration certificate during the pendency of the suit.

Legal Precedents and Principles
The court referred to several precedents to support its interpretation:
- *Vita Food Products Incorporated v. Unus Shipping Co.*: Contracts not expressly forbidden by statute are not necessarily nullified for statutory disobedience unless public policy demands it.
- *Smith v. Mawhood*: Distinction between penalties for revenue protection and those implying prohibition of contracts.
- *St. John Shipping Corporation v. Joseph Rank Ltd.*: Statutory penalties do not necessarily imply prohibition of contracts unless the statute aims to protect the public or a specific class.

The court also considered the principle of stare decisis, noting that the consistent judicial interpretation of similar statutes supports the view that the absence of a registration certificate does not invalidate loans. The court cited previous decisions, including *Patiram v. Baliram* and *Laxman v. Yogaji*, which upheld the validity of loans made by unregistered moneylenders.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the suit of a moneylender is not liable to be dismissed solely because the registration certificate was not held at the time of the transaction. It is sufficient if the moneylender produces a valid registration certificate during the pendency of the suit. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of revenue protection and the established legal principles regarding statutory penalties and contract validity. The court answered the referred question affirmatively, allowing the moneylender to proceed with the suit upon producing a valid registration certificate during its pendency.