- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S. Arora Finance Company, Tonk v. Naseer Ahammad
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Second Appeal)
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs (a firm) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,900/-. The plaint alleged that the defendant borrowed Rs. 3,500/- on 16-2-73 (with interest at Re. 1 per cent per month) from one partner of the plaintiff firm and that a promissory note and receipt were executed for that amount. The plaint also alleged a further loan of Rs. 2,600/- on 8-8-74 on the basis of another promissory note and receipt from the plaintiff firm.
The defendant admitted borrowing money but disputed the amount and pleaded that the plaintiffs were money lenders within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963, that they did not hold a licence, and that they had not complied with Sections 22 and 23 of the Act; on this basis the defendant contended the suit was not maintainable.
At trial the Court framed eight issues (including issues Nos. 6 and 7). In view of Section 26 of the Act the trial Court decided only issues Nos. 6 and 7 and found that the plaintiffs were money lenders without a valid licence and had failed to comply with Sections 22 and 23; the trial Court therefore dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge, Tonk (first appellate Court) affirmed the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 14-12-79. This second appeal challenged that affirmance.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs are money lenders with respect to the loan (issue No. 6 as framed by the trial Court)?
- If issue No. 6 is answered in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs had a valid licence for money lending and had complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (issue No. 7)?
- Whether the subordinate Courts were justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of non-compliance with Sections 11 and 26 of the Act, 1963?
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments (as advanced by Shri P.D. Mathur)
- Subordinate Courts erred in deciding issues Nos. 6 and 7 against the plaintiffs-appellants.
- Reference was made to Section 26 of the Act; plaintiffs filed an application before the trial Court under Section 11(2) of the Act (as amended by the Amendment Act, Rajasthan Act No. 13 of 1976) which the trial Court wrongly dismissed.
- The plaintiffs had licences which were submitted in original to the registry for renewal; licences were filed before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC and plaintiffs prayed that those documents be taken on record, implying they should be permitted to prove compliance with Sections 22 and 23.
Defendant's Arguments (as advanced by Shri S.M. Ali)
- The plaintiffs failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 11, 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963.
- For that reason the plaintiffs' suit was rightly dismissed by the subordinate Courts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ramchandra v. Prabhulal, 1982 Rajasthan LR 275 : (AIR 1982 Raj 212) | Consideration of the implication of Section 26 (as amended) and the retrospective effect of the amended provisions; noted the Legislature provided an exception to retrospective effect in Section 11 but not in Section 26(b). | The Court relied on Ramchandra to conclude that the amended Section 26(b) has retrospective effect and that, accordingly, the amended provision must be applied to pending suits even though this may create hardship for money lenders who had filed suits before amendment. |
| Kanhaiyalal v. Shri Lal, 1980 WLN 469 | Held that, in view of the purpose and object of the Act, the amended Section 26(b) applies to pending suits and that non-compliance with Sections 22 and 23 requires dismissal of the suit. | The Court cited this decision to support the view that the word "suit" in amended Section 26(b) embraces pending suits and that non-compliance mandates dismissal. |
| Ranchoredass v. Malook Chand, 1980 WLN 580 : (AIR 1981 NOC 72) | Observed that the intention of the Legislature is clear that amended Section 26(b) applies to pending suits and that the Court shall dismiss the whole suit where Sections 22 & 23 have not been complied with in respect of the whole claim. | The Court adopted this authority to reinforce the conclusion that amended Section 26(b) applies retrospectively to pending suits and supports dismissal where Sections 22 and 23 were not complied with. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by identifying the statutory provisions relevant to dismissal of a suit: Section 11 (licensing at the time of advancing a loan) and Section 26 (effect of non-compliance with Sections 22 and 23) of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. It summarized the legal consequences set out by those provisions: a suit can be dismissed if at the time of advancing the loan the money lender did not have a licence (Section 11) or if the money lender has not complied with Sections 22 & 23 in respect of the whole or any part of the claim (Section 26).
The Court noted that it was not disputed that the plaintiffs were money lenders; licences had been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants. The central question therefore became whether the subordinate Courts were justified in dismissing the suit for non-compliance with Sections 11 and/or 26.
The Court examined prior decisions (Ramchandra, Kanhaiyalal, Ranchoredass) which construed the effect of the 1976 amendments. Those authorities were interpreted as establishing that the amended Section 26(b) has retrospective effect and therefore applies to pending suits. The Court emphasized the legislative choice: an express exception to retrospective operation was included in the amended Section 11 but no such exception was provided in amended Section 26(b). The Court treated that legislative choice as decisive.
Applying those principles to the record, the Court found that even assuming the plaintiffs possessed licences, the plaintiffs had nowhere claimed or proved compliance with Sections 22 and 23. Issue No. 7 (whether the plaintiffs had a valid licence and had complied with Sections 22 & 23) had been framed at trial; it was therefore incumbent on the plaintiffs to produce evidence of compliance. The plaintiffs failed to adduce any such evidence at trial. The Court concluded that, on the pleadings and the evidence (or lack thereof) in respect of issue No. 7, the subordinate Courts were justified in dismissing the suit under Section 26(b) as amended.
The Court rejected the plaintiffs' request at the second appeal stage for leave to file licences and to lead evidence on compliance, holding that no further opportunity could be afforded at the stage of a second appeal on a point that was squarely within issue No. 7 at trial.
The Court also considered and refused the proposal to make a reference on the retrospective effect of Section 26(b), stating that the question had been sufficiently addressed and that the Court had no doubt about the retrospective effect of Section 26(b).
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgments below; the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Implications:
- The dismissal affirms that where a money lender has not complied with Sections 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963, the Court must dismiss the suit in respect of the claim (applying amended Section 26(b)).
- The Court applied existing precedents holding that amended Section 26(b) has retrospective effect and therefore applies to pending suits; accordingly the decision enforces those prior authorities rather than announcing a new precedent.
- Practically, the direct effect for the parties is that the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of Rs. 5,900/- remains dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirements; the Court refused to permit further evidence on compliance at the second appeal stage.
This summary is confined to the facts, arguments, authorities and reasoning explicitly contained in the provided opinion.
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 14-12-79 passed by District Judge, Tonk (first appellate Court') affirming the judgment and decree dt. 30-8-70 passed by the Civil Judge, Tonk (trial Court') in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,9007-.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5900/- against the defendant, with Rs. 3,500/- on 16-2-73 on interest at Re. 1/- per cent per month from plaintiff 2, partner of the firm-plaintiff a pronote and receipt for the same is also alleged to have been executed by the defendant. Besides this, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 26007-on the basis of another pronote and receipt from the plaintiff firm on 8-8-74.
3. The defendant in his written statement admitted to have borrowed the money but the amount of loan was shown different by the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff-appellants are money lenders within the definition of Section 2(10) of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1963'), and that, the plaintiffs are not having any license and since they have also not complied with the provisions contained in Sections 22 & 23 of the Act, 1963, according to the defendant-respondent, the suit is not maintainable.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues including issue of relief. In view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, 1963, the trial Court only gave its finding on issues Nos. 6 & 7 and it was found by the trial Court that the plaintiffs are money lenders and have got no license under the Act, 1963 and have failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the Act, 1963, and ultimately the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed without deciding other issues. On an appeal by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal.
5. I have heard Shri P.D. Mathur for the plaintiffs and Shri S.M. Ali for the respondents-defendants, and have gone through the record.
6. Before I consider the rival contentions of the parties, it would be proper to quote the issues Nos. 6 & 7 framed by the trial Court hereunder:
"6. Whether the plaintiffs are money lenders with respect to this loan ?
7. If the issue No. 6 is decided in the affirmative, then whether the plaintiffs have a valid license for money lending and have complied with the provisions of sections 22 & 23 of the rajasthan money lenders act to what effect ?"
7. Shri Mathur on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the subordinate Courts fell in error in deciding the issues Nos. 6 and 7 against the plaintiffs-appellants. Learned counsel merely advanced his arguments with regard to Section 26 of the Act, and submitted that the plaintiff-appellants filed an application before the trial Court under Section 11(2) of the Act which now has been amended by the Amendment Act (Rajasthan Act No. 13 of 1976) published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Part lV-A (Extraordinary) dated 13-2-1976 (Pp. 181 to 185) but, the trial Court wrongly dismissed this application.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants were having license under the Act, 1963 but the same was submitted in original to the registry for its renewal. The licencese are filed before this Court with an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. praying therein that the documents (Licences) may be taken on record.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the order hand, submitted that in the instant case, the plaintiff-appellants failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 11, 22 & 23 of the Act, 1963 and the suit of the plaintiff-appellants has been dismissed because of the reasons that the plaintiffs-appellants failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, 1963.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.
11. Looking to the provisions contained in Sections 11 & 26 of the Act, it cannot be disputed that the suit can be dismissed on two grounds which have been mentioned in Sections 11 & 26 of the Act, 1963. Under Section 11 of the Act, 1963, if the money lender at the time of advancing the loan was not having licence, that suit shall be dismissed forthwith without going into merits of the case. Similarly, under Section 26 of the Act, 1963, if it is found that the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, 1963 have not been complied with by the money lender in respect of whole or any part of the claim, the suit shall be dismissed.
12. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the plaintiffs are money lenders and this fact is clear from the admission of the plaintiffs-appellants and the licences which have been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants.
13. The only question before this Court is, whether the subordinate Courts were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants due to non-compliance of the provisions as contained in Sections 11 & 26 of the Act?
14. In Ramchandra v. Prabhulal, 1982 Rajasthan LR 275 : (AIR 1982 Raj 212), the implication of Section 26 of the Act, 1963 was considered and it was observed that the amended provisions have retrospective effect. The relevant observations read as under :
"Sections 11 and 26 were amended in 1976. In Section 11, the Legislature expressly provided an exception of its application to pending cases, but no such exception was carved out in Section 26(b). When the legislature acts at a particular point of time, in legislating two provisions in the same Act, and in one retrospective effect is avoided by making an exception and in the other drastic consequences are contemplated by not enacting such an explanation or exception, this Court while interpreting the law has got no option but to respect the wishes of legislature, though seemingly. It may create hardship to those money lenders who have already filed their suits and were not aware of the drastic consequences of non-compliance of the Section of the Act, such an intention of the legislature cannot be changed unless it lacks any legislative authority or becomes violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. None of the two contingencies contemplated has been shown to exist, as there is no challenge to plenary authority, nor there is any violation of the Constitutional provisions. General principle of the statute is that the statute should be treated prospective and not retrospective, more so, when the provisions are penal in nature. However, it all depends upon the scheme of the Act, intention to enact a particular statute and merely on the basis of generalisation when expressly by providing centra-language in Section 11 in contrast to Section 26(b), the legislature expresses its intention, this Court cannot infer to the contrary, (paras 5 & 6)
15. Similarly, in Kanhaiyalal v. Shri Lal, 1980 WLN 469, it has been observed that keeping in view the purpose and object or the reasons and spirit of the Act the provisions 'of Section 26(b) of the Act as they stand after the amendment by the Amending Act of 1976 will apply to the pending suits also and if Sections 22 and 23 have not been complied with then the Court has to dismiss the suit as the word 'suit' as used in amended Section 26(b) embraces within it the pending suits.
16. In another decision in Ranchoredass v. Malook Chand, 1980 WLN 580 : (AIR 1981 NOC 72), it has been observed by this Court that the intention of the legislature has been clearly and undoubtedly expressed that the amended Section 26(b) is to apply to the pending suits. It is enjoined that the Court shall dismiss the whole suit where it finds that the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the Act have not been complied with by the money lender in respect of the whole claim.
17. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is thus clear that Sections 11 and 26(b) as amended by the Amending Act of 1976 have retrospective effect. In Section 11 of the Act, 1963, the Legislature expressly provided an exception of its application to its pending cases but no such exception was carved out in Section 26(b). When the Legislature acts at a particular point of time in legislating two provisions in the same Act and in one retrospective effect is avoided by making an exception and in the other drastic consequences are contemplated by not enacting such an exception or explanation In this view of the matter, if it is assumed that the plaintiffs were having licence then too, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs-appellants had not complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, 1963 and on that count, both the Subordinate Courts were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, because it has nowhere been claimed by the plaintiffs-appellant that they have complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, 1963. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this is a matter of evidence and if the licences are allowed to be taken then the plaintiff-appellants would be in a position to lead evidence with regard to the compliance of the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, 1963. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants because of the reasons that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by the learned trial Court and issues Nos. 6 and 7 (as quoted above) were framed.
18. In view of issue No. 7, it was obligatory on the parts of the plaintiffs-appellants to have adduced the evidence to the fact that they have complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, 1963. But, the plaintiffs-appellants failed to produce or adduce any evidence on this point. In these circumstances, no further opportunity can now be afforded at the stage of second appeal to the plaintiffs-appellants to prove issue No. 7.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that a reference has already been made on the question as to whether the provisions of Section 26(b) of the Act, 1963, have its retrospective effect so, in this case, reference may also be made on the same question. As I have already discussed that Section 26(b) of the Act is having its retrospective effect and I have no doubt about this conclusion in my mind. In these circumstances, I do not feel it necessary to make any reference on this point.
20. In view of the foregoing discussions, in the result, I do no find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
Alert