1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1668 OF 2008 Nitesh Hirachand Jain ..Plaintiff Vs. Bhiwa Bansi Ughade ..Defendant Ms. Neeta Solankhi i/b Kiran Jain & Co. for the Plaintiff None for Defendant CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE: 16 TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. This summary suit is filed under order 37 of the CPC based on a promissory note executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff on 12.09.2007 for an amount of Rs.75,000 /- It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is holding a valid money lending licence and carry on money lending business by complying all the requirements under the provisions of Bombay Money Lending Act and the rules framed there under. On 12.09.2007 the Plaintiff has advanced a loan of Rs.75,000/- to the Defendant in cash and in consideration of having received the amount, the 2 Defendant has executed a promissory note. The Defendant agreed to pay interest @ 21% p.a. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 20.12.1965 in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 25 of the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946 laying down maximum rate of interest that can be charged by money lenders carrying on business of advancing loans. Interest at maximum rate of 21% p.a. can be charged under the said notification. The Plaintiff issued a notice dated 07.04.2008 through his Advocate to the Defendant and demanded the amount of Rs.75,000 /- advanced by way of loan together with interest. Notice has been sent under certificate of posting so also by RPAD at the address of the Defendant. However, notice sent by RPAD has been returned unserved. Despite service of summons the Defendant has not entered his appearance. Hence, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to have been admitted by the Defendant and the Plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. This position is clear from the provision of order 37 Rule 2 sub Rule (3). 2. The Plaintiff has placed on record the original promissory note duly signed by the Defendant. Money lending licence issued on 12.03.2008 which is valid for 3 the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.07.2008 and copy of the cash book. Perusal of the provisions of Bombay Money Lending Act reveal a complete scheme in relation to the conduct of business of money lending. Section 10 provides that no court shall pass decree in favour of money lender unless court is satisfied, that at the time when the loan was advanced, the money lender holds a valid licence. Section 18 & 19 lay down vital compliance to be made by the money lender. Section 21 which has over riding effect over all Law's for the time being in force empowers the court to disallow the whole of the Plaintiff's claim. In the event, if the money lender has failed to comply with the provisions of section 18 and/or 19 of the Act. The requirement of section 18 is that the money lender has to maintain cash book and ledger and is further oblige to deliver the statement showing the particulars of the loan within a period of 30 days from the date of advance of the loan. A copy of the said statement is also to be deliver to the Assistant Registrar. The Plaintiff has placed on record copy of the cash book so also the ledger and statement coupled with documents indicating supply of the statement to the debtor and Assistant Registrar within period prescribed. Material is also placed on record to indicate the compliance of 4 section 19 of the Act as stated herein above. The Defendant has chosen not to enter appearance and thus the summary suit will have to be decreed without any further inquiry. However, having regard to the fact that the present suit is filed by a licenced money lender, it is scrutinised that the provisions of Bombay Money Lending Act are also complied with. In the result the Plaintiff's suit is decreed. (a) The Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.85,226 to the Plaintiff (b) The Defendant shall pay interest on the principal amount of Rs.75,000/- with simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit until realization of the amount. (c) The Defendant shall pay costs of the suit to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of court fees as permissible under the rules. (A.P.Deshpande, J)