- (1.) Both the suits have been taken up together for hearing in terms of the order dated 15th July, 2002 passed by Mr. Justice Sengupta in C.S. No. 32 of 2002. Accordingly common issues in both the suits which are, in fact, the cross suits, were framed on 27.4.2004 and issue No. 1 reads as "is C.S. No. 32 of 2002 maintainable ?" In the present discussion hereinbelow the said issue No. 1 on maintainability of C.S. No. 32 of 2002 is taken up for disposal.
(2.) In C.S. No. 32 of 2002 M/s. Angel's Consultants Private Limited and Ajay Singh Lodha are the plaintiffs whereas Anand Mehta & Co. and Mr. Anand Mehta are the defendants. The position is almost reverse in E.O.S. No. 6 of 2002. There Anand Chandra Mehta is the plaintiff and M/s. Angel's Consultants Private Limited is the defendant. In fact E.O.S. 6 of 2002 was initially filed before the City Civil Court, Calcutta and it was pending before the learned Judge, Vllth Bench, City Civil Court and there it was registered as Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2002. I am concerned with the maintainability of C.S. No. 32 of 2002.
(3.) Mr. Suman Dutt, learned Counsel along with Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, learned Counsel and Mr. G. S. Gupta, learned Counsel has appeared for the defendants. It is submitted by them before me that E.O.S. No. 6 of 2002 was filed earlier. The only question raised by the defendants in connection with the issue of maintainability is whether the suit can be filed by the plaintiff without having any money-lending licence and in this connection Mr. Dutt has drawn my attention to the paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of the plaint and tries to impress upon me that in paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiffs have admitted the loan transaction. The learned Counsels for the defendants have also drawn my attention to the provisions of Sections 2(13), 8, 13, 24, 25 and 27 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "B.M.L. Act"). It is also pointed out that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be a non-Banking Financial Company and in that case they are to take permission from the Reserve Bank of India. But there is no prima facie proof produced by the plaintiffs that they had obtained such permission as required by law.;