Second Appeal No. 286 of 2002. Case: Hind Finance Industries & Investment Limited Vs Vinayakrao and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 286 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.G. Bhonsule, Advocate and For Respondents: K.N. Dadhe, Advocate |
| Judges | A. B. Chaudhari, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946 - Sections 10, 5(2), 9; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114, 114(e) |
| Judgement Date | March 02, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. B. Chaudhari, J.
-
This Court on 5th September, 2005 framed the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the renewal of the licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act is required to be obtained before the date of advancing of the loan?
2. Whether subsequent renewal of licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act specifically covering under the date on which the loan was advanced is enough compliance?
3. Whether in respect of the suit on a mortgage, licence under Bombay Money Lenders Act is required?
-
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1996, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati and confirmed by order dated 1.3.2002, passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc, Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 378/2000.
-
In support of the appeal Mr. V.G. Bhonsule, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that renewal of licence under the Money Lenders Act is on an application to be filed for renewal thereof every year within 3 weeks after the expiry of licence. He contended that both the Courts have concurrently found that the licence Exh.-36 having been issued on 28.8.1985 for the period from 1.8.1984 to 31.7.1985 and the transaction of lending the money to the dependents having taken place on 14.5.1985 the Courts below could not have held that there was no money lending licence on the date of advancement of loan. According to Mr. Bhonsule, grant or renewal of licence under the Money Lenders Act is an official act to be performed by the concerned officers entrusted with the official duty and the applicant-appellant could not have any control in getting the licence renewed. According to him, it is a well-known fact despite making application for renewal within time prescribed by law the actual issuance thereof takes its own time but then that does not mean that there is no valid licence on the date of advancement of loan. The licence Exh.-36 clearly indicates that validity of the licence from 1.8.1984 to 31.7.1985 whereas the advancement of loan on 14.5.1985. The reasons given by the Courts below that it was essential for the appellant to show the date on which the application for renewal of licence was submitted and upon failure thereof it was presumed that on the date of transaction namely 14.5.1985 there was no licence at all. He submits, Section 10 of the the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 speaks of only requirement of licence and nothing more, therefore, even if the licence was actually issued on a posterior date but for the period relevant in question the same would not nullify the transaction particularly when it is not a case of the respondents that the application was not made within time and no rebuttal evidence was tendered by the respondent in rebuttal to the licence Exh.-36. He, therefore, submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in law causing miscarriage of justice to the appellant and therefore prayed for allowing the appeal.
-
Per contra, Mr. K.N. Dadhe, the learned counsel for the respondents-borrower submitted that Section 100 of C.P.C. does not enable this Court to interfere into the findings of facts concurrently recorded by the two Courts and, therefore, there is no need to...
To continue reading
Request your trial