- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT No. 246 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT No. 488 OF 2007 Dr. Dayal Dhanrajmal Mansharamani ... Plaintiff Vs. Jaswantlal Kantilal (Ankleshwar) P. Ltd. & Anr. ... Defendants *** Mr. M. V. Palan a/w Mr. C. A. Shukla i/b B. S. Chandani, for the Plaintiff. Mr. T. G. Vora i/b Mrs. Sheela S. Balsari, for Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 *** CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009. PC :- 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.4,53,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum on a principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the payment and/or realization. 2. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had lent and advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant No.1 and that in consideration thereof defendant No. 1 drew two bills of exchange dated 30th January 2004 and 14th February 2004 in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each, which were accepted by defendant No.2. Nor is - 2 - there any dispute that defendant No.1 issued two cheques dated 28th July 2004 and 12th August 2004 in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each towards repayment of the bills and two cheques both dated 12th August 2004, each in the sum of Rs.13,500/- towards interest. All four cheques were admittedly dishonoured. 3. There was no reply to the plaintiff’s advocate notice dated 26th July 2006 demanding payment. The suit was filed on 11th December 2006. 4. The fact that bills of exchange did not stipulate any rate of interest is immaterial in view of section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The suit is clearly based on the bills of exchange and the dishonoured cheques, none of which have been denied by the defendants. That proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending cannot adversely affect this suit. 5. The last defense was under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. Apart from legal submissions to the effect that the plaintiff does not have a license under said Act, there is no evidence which establishes that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of money lending. That is a pure question of fact. In the absence of particulars in respect thereof, it is not possible to uphold this defense. The stray instances of lending money do not constitute the business of money lending. - 3 - 6. In the circumstances, there is no defense to the suit. 7. Therefore, I pass following order. ORDER The leave to defend is rejected. The Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed as prayed. However, interest after the date of filing of the suit shall be at 10% per annum. Refund of court-fees shall be as per rules. The learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees not to execute the decree upto 31st January 2010.