DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) In a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced, the plaintiff has applied for judgement on admission.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff had lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 5 crores to the defendant. The defendant has admitted receipt of the sum of Rs. 5 crores from the plaintiff. The defendant has admitted that the agreed rate of interest payable is 15% per annum. The defendant has stated that it repaid the sum of Rs. 3 crores inclusive of interest up to the date of filing of the suit. The defendant has also stated that it repaid a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs on December 21, 2020 post filing of the suit.
(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, although the defendant did not raise the issue of Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 in the affidavit, the plaintiff in order to avoid any controversy paid the licence fee along with penalty in terms of section 10 read with section 13 (2) of the Act of 1940 on February 18, 2020. According to him, even without payment of the license fee, the Court could have proceeded to pass a summary decree. In support of such contention, he has relied upon (Arpit Impex Private Limited v. Arunodaya Plantations Ltd.,2002 2 CalLJ 169) and ( Swaika Vanaspati Products Ltd. v. Canbank Financial Services Ltd. , 2000 2 CalLJ 185).;