JUDGMENT 1. This is a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced along with unpaid interest. Six issues were raised on behalf of the defendants and those were as follows:- "1. Was there any agreement to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum at quarterly intervals as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint? 2. Was there any agreement to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum, compoundable yearly with effect from 1st of April, 1988 as alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint? 3. Has this Court jurisdiction to receive the instant suit as alleged in paragraph 4 of the written statement? 4. Is the claim for interest in the suit contrary to the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940? 5. Is the suit un-maintainable for the reasons stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement? 6. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 2. Mr. Barin Ghosh appearing for the defendant has not pressed the third issue and has contested the suit mainly on the fourth and the fifth issues mentioned above. 3. In so far as the loan of the principal amount of Rs. 1 lakh is concerned there could be no dispute that the plaintiff did lend this sum. Also there could be no dispute that there was an agreement to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum. The Judge's brief or documents was by consent marked as Exbt. A. A bare perusal of three documents viz. serial no.1, serial no.2, and the serial no.14 of Ex. A would leave no manner of doubt in regard to the amount of loan and the rate of interest mentioned above. Accordingly, I conclude that, so far as the arithmetic of the claim is concerned, the loan was granted on the 10th of December, 1985 and that save for payment of two several sums of Rs. 20,000/- each, one of which is mentioned in P.D. No.7, there was no other payment forthcoming from the defendant. Thus, if, the defendant were to fail on the fourth and the fifth issues, the decree as claimed in claim (a) of the plaint, as well as appropriate pendente lite and further interest thereon would have to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Thus, if, the defendant were to fail on the fourth and the fifth issues, the decree as claimed in claim (a) of the plaint, as well as appropriate pendente lite and further interest thereon would have to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 4. As to the agreement to pay any interest at a compounded rate, I am unable to come to the conclusion, that there was any such agreement entered into by and between the parties, some two/three years after the loan, as alleged in the plaint and as sought to be made out by the plaintiff from the box. The only document subsequent to this alleged oral agreement is P.D. No.9 which mentions interest amount of Rs. 200/- only. It is not possible to ascertain here from that the same represents a compounded rate, as the same was calculated on a sum less than the original principal amount. Thus, the question of compounding of interest, or calculating interest on interest did not arise. I would, accordingly, answer the issue no.2 in favour of the defendants. 5. In regard to the application of the Bengal Money Lenders Act to the institution of suit, Mr. Ghosh relied upon several definition Sections and in particular upon S. 13 of the said Act. The Sections were also referred to by Mr. Tibrewal in his arguments seeking to establish the inapplicability of the same to the suit in hand. Mr. Tibrewal, further, relied upon Ss. 30 and 30(A) of the said Act, which are concerned inter alia with the reliefs to be granted to the borrower, like a ceiling to the interest rates. 6. Mr. Tibrewal contended for the plaintiff that the detrimental effect of the Act, in so far as it concerns the plaintiff, is limited to these sections, which grant relief to the borrower. He submitted that the other Sections relied on by Mr. Ghosh would not have any effect upon the suit, save only that his client might be required to pay a certain penalty, being at most three times the licence fee, for the purpose of continuing the suit, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was at all a money-lender within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Ghosh would not have any effect upon the suit, save only that his client might be required to pay a certain penalty, being at most three times the licence fee, for the purpose of continuing the suit, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was at all a money-lender within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Tibrewal emphasized that in case of the instant loan the plaintiff could in no view of the matter be taken as a money-lender within the meaning of the said Act. 7. The suit proceeded upon only the plaintiff offering himself to be examined in the box. The defendants called no witness on their part. There is, accordingly, some advantage in the matter of proof naturally derived in this regard by the plaintiff. Before I comment upon the evidence led in this suit, it is better to set out some of the relevant provisions of the Act as were relied upon by Mr. Ghosh. "S. 2 Definitions – In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject of context. (2) Borrower means a person to whom a loan is advanced and includes a successor-in-interest or surety. (4) Commercial loan means a loan advanced to any person to be used by such person solely for the purposes of any business or concern relating to trade, commerce, industry, mining, planting, insurance, transport, banking or entertainment, or to the occupation of wharfinger, warehouseman or contractor or any other venture of a mercantile nature, whether is proprietor or principal or agent or guarantor. (12) Loan means an advance, whether of money or in kind, made on condition of re-payment with interest and includes any transaction which is in substance a loan but does not include......(not material) (13) Money-lender means a person who carries en the business of money-lending in West Bengal or who has a place of such business in West Bengal, and includes a pawnee as defined in S. 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (9 of 1872). (14) Money-lending business and business of money-lending means the business of advancing loans either solely or in conjunction with any other business. S. 13. (14) Money-lending business and business of money-lending means the business of advancing loans either solely or in conjunction with any other business. S. 13. Stay of suit when money-lender does not hold licence:- (1) No Court shall pass a decree or order in favour of a money-lender in any suit instituted by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan advanced after the date notified under S. 8, or in any suit instituted by a money-lender for the enforcement of an agreement entered into or security taken, or for the recovery of any security given, in respect of such loan, unless the Court is satisfied that, at the time or times when the loan or any part thereof was advanced, the money-lender held an effective licence. (2) If during the trial of a suit to which sub-section (1) applies, the Court finds that the money-lender did not hold such licence, the Court shall, before proceeding with the suit, require the, moneylender to pay in the prescribed manner and within the period to be fixed by the Court such penalty as the Court thinks fit, not exceeding three times the amount of the licence fee specified in S. 10. (3) If the money-lender fails to pay the penalty within the period fixed under sub-section (2) or within such further time as the Court may allow, the Court shall dismiss the suit if the money-lender pays the penalty within such period, the Court shall proceed with the suit. 8. It might straightway be said that it was the case of no party that the loan is excepted by reason of any of the exceptions mentioned under sub-section (12) of S. 2 above. Admittedly commercial loans were taken out of the exceptions in 1981 and as such the case would have to be decided without reference to this exception. 9. The first point which should be decided is whether the plaintiff was a money-lender within the meaning of sub-section (13) of S. 2 when the loan was advanced. Mr. Tibrewal placed before me questions and answers of the plaintiff, being Nos. 45, 47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58 and 64. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, placed questions and answers nos. 60, 68 and 69. These questions and answers are set out below. All these are in cross-examination. "45. Mr. Tibrewal placed before me questions and answers of the plaintiff, being Nos. 45, 47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58 and 64. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, placed questions and answers nos. 60, 68 and 69. These questions and answers are set out below. All these are in cross-examination. "45. Can you tell My Lord where you used to keep the records relating to the purjas, that you have told My Lord? / We had one or two Purjas and we used to keep them either in office or in our house. 46. Apart from the purja which had been tendered into this proceeding, now many other purjas did you have during the relevant year that is in 1985? / May be there are only one or two but I do not have now. 47. Where did you use to keep the records in regard to the payments that you received from the defendant during the relevant years? / We used to keep the counter foils and the documents, copies of the pay-in-slip of the banks with us. 51. In. 1985 the only business that you were carrying on was money lending business? / At that point of time we did not have any business. 52. And you knew for the purpose of carrying out this amount of money lending business you required to have printed forms for confirmation of account which you obtained from your borrowers (Shown Exbt. C)? / We did not have any money lending business. This was supposed to be given to Income Tax Department. For that purpose we used to prepare this document. It does not matter whether it is printed or hand written or typed or xeroxed. 56. In 1985, according to your evidence, you were only a student? / Yes. I used to study. As I said earlier I used to study till 1987 but whenever I got time I went to my parent's firm and used to help for the business. And particularly I used to help in Accounts Department. 57. When did you come to know Champalal Anchalia for the first time? / I met him on 10.12.1985, when he came to receive money on cheque from our firm. 58. When did you meet Mohan Lal Anchalia for the first time? / I used to know him before lending him money. 60. 57. When did you come to know Champalal Anchalia for the first time? / I met him on 10.12.1985, when he came to receive money on cheque from our firm. 58. When did you meet Mohan Lal Anchalia for the first time? / I used to know him before lending him money. 60. So your parent firm Bhawarlal Vijay Kumar used to also carry out money lending transaction with Mohanlal Anchalia and you used to know about it? / My parent's firm Bhawarlal Vijay Kumar had iron business. They had business of trading of iron and steel. They used to sell iron and steel and also buy iron and sell. This firm did not have any money lending business. Whenever Amolak Chand Champalal needed money we used to give him money on Khatapeta account and whenever we needed money we got money from him on Khatapeta account for transaction of business that is buying and selling goods. 64. Did you maintain books of accounts in respect of dealings and transactions you have during those years? / We do not keep cash book, Ledger as such. We used to keep purjas, Rukas etc. documents relating to transactions with the banks. We do not have transanctions on Khatapeta account. We had only one or two accounts and we kept the documents relating to these account. 68. I am putting it to you that since you were in money lending business on 10th December, 1985, on the first day you met Champalal Anchalia and you lent him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- because you were in the habit of taking such risk? / We first time met Champalal Anchalia on 10.12.85 but we used to know Mohan Lal Anchalia earlier. Mohan Lal Anchalia told us on telephone that Amolak Chand Champalal was required to buy some goods and he needed money for that and he promised to pay 18% of the amount taken. And whenever we asked for the money back he would pay it back, and we agreed to this proposal. And he also told us on telephone that his elder brother that is Champalal Anchalia was coming to your office and he asked us to give him money. And whenever we asked for the money back he would pay it back, and we agreed to this proposal. And he also told us on telephone that his elder brother that is Champalal Anchalia was coming to your office and he asked us to give him money. And he came to our office and I asked my father's brother that is my uncle whether they recognised him as Champalal or not, on their instance when one of them identified him as Champalal, we gave him cheque and he signed on the purja. 69. I am putting it to you that according to your evidence you came to know Mohan Lal Anchalia only by reason of the fact that your parent firm Bhawarlal Vijay Kumar lending transaction with Mohan Lal Anchalia? / We did not have any money lending business. We used to know Mohan Lall Anchalia in respect of transactions made on Khatapeta Account with my parent's business that is Bhawarlal Vijay Kumar." 10. Mr. Tibrewal submitted on the basis of the above that the plaintiff was clearly not lending money. He said that the suit was almost in the nature of an undefended suit and since the defendant was not calling any evidence on its behalf, the plaintiff's case from the box should be accepted. In my opinion, however, it remains for the plaintiff to prove his case even though no witness of the defendant has come into the box. Such an onus would remain upon the plaintiff, even if, the defendant did not appear at trial at all. The evidence would, therefore, remain to be examined for determination of the issue as to whether the plaintiff was or was not a money lender within the meaning of the Act, Mr. Tibrewal submitted further that it should be accepted that the plaintiff did not maintain any books of accounts at the material time, i.e., in 1985. It would not be material if the plaintiff maintained any books of account from 1987 because the point of time for determination as to the plaintiff being a money-lender would be 10th of December, 1985 and not at any time two years later on. Mr. Tibrewal stated that there might have been one or two other transactions relating to loan, involving the plaintiff, but that these few transactions were isolated, or stray in nature, and would not constitute carrying on of business. Mr. Mr. Tibrewal stated that there might have been one or two other transactions relating to loan, involving the plaintiff, but that these few transactions were isolated, or stray in nature, and would not constitute carrying on of business. Mr. Tibrewal relied upon several cases in this regard to which I shall make reference later on. 11. Mr. Ghosh, on the other hand, submitted that the carrying on of business within the meaning of sub-section 2(12) is not to be interpreted with reference to the number of loan transitions but rather with reference to a party's attitude. He gave the instance of a person advancing a single big loan, and reposing in confidence thereafter, on the basis of the interest to be earned thereupon. Mr. Ghosh said that this would surely be a loan within the meaning of the Act and the lender would also be a money lender within the meaning of the Act, though he would be a very fortunate money lender, who could rely upon a single loan for his entire business. 12. Mr. Ghosh also pointed out from the exhibits, certain printed forms, used for the purpose of keeping records of the transactions, and the businesslike way in which interest was calculated on these printed forms. These are amongst the disclosed documents of the plaintiff himself. Mr. Ghosh submitted that this indicates a business attitude of the plaintiff towards the loan and that this attitude towards the loan is of crucial importance in determining whether the plaintiff comes under sub-section 2(12) quoted above. Mr. Ghosh also relied upon certain other points in this regard which I shall mention later on. 13. In support of his contention that stray or isolated transactions do not constitute carrying on of money lending business. Mr. Tibrewal relied first upon the case of Gajanan vs. Seth Brindaban, AIR 1970 SC 2007 and placed head note (a), as well as paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. In seeking to distinguish this case, Mr. Ghosh drew my attention to the said head note and said that in the money-lending Act under question, being the C.P. and Berar Money Lenders' Act, a money lender means a person who in the regular course of business advances a loan. Mr. In seeking to distinguish this case, Mr. Ghosh drew my attention to the said head note and said that in the money-lending Act under question, being the C.P. and Berar Money Lenders' Act, a money lender means a person who in the regular course of business advances a loan. Mr. Ghosh in this regard drew my specific attention to the passage quoted at the end of paragraph 10 of the said judgment and the said passage reads as follows:- "The word regular shows that the plaintiff must have been in the habit of advancing loans to persons as a matter of regular business. If only an isolated act of money-lending is shown to the Court it is impossible to state that constitutes a regular course of business. It is an act of business, but not necessarily an act done in the regular course of business." 14. The quotation is from a judgment of Vivian Bose, J., in the case of Sitaram Sharwan vs. Magharam, AIR 1941 Nag 177. In my opinion, the said passage was correctly relied upon by Mr. Ghosh in emphasizing the importance of the word regular. In the Act under review by the Supreme Court in the above case a money-lender is defined under S. 2(v) of that Act as a person who in the regular course of business advances a loan. 15. The word regular has two usual meanings. The first meaning is opposed to irregular and that meaning does not concern us. The second meaning connotes a certain degree of repetition at fixed intervals. A regular routine might be a daily routine or a weekly routine or a monthly routine or it may be routine with even larger gaps or intervals than one month. But a single transaction or a single instance, in the above meaning of the word regular, would never be a regular act. That is why in the above passage, in the manner I venture to read and understand the same, an isolated act of money lending has been said to be impossible of construction as in a regular course of business. 16. In the Bengal Money Lenders' Act the definition of money lender is significantly different, in that, any person who carries on the business of money lending in West Bengal or who has a place of such business in West Bengal would be a money lender. 16. In the Bengal Money Lenders' Act the definition of money lender is significantly different, in that, any person who carries on the business of money lending in West Bengal or who has a place of such business in West Bengal would be a money lender. The word regular is notably absent. In these circumstances, the above Supreme Court authority would not be an appropriate one to rely upon for the purpose of supporting the proposition that a single loan would not and could not class a lender as a money-lender within the meaning of the definition contained in the Bengal Act under sub-section 2(13). 17. The next case relied upon by Mr. Tebriwal is the case of Gauri Shankar vs. Magharam, AIR 1974 Rajasthan 238. The definition of business of money lending in the Rajasthan Money Lenders' Act is similar to the Bengal Act and does not contain the word regular in the definition. While construing the said section Justice Modi in the Rajasthan case referred to 1906 1 King's Bench 584 and said that a man who carries on money lending business is one who is ready and willing to lend to all and sundry provided that they are from his point of view eligible. 18. In the case before Justice Modi it had been said by the plaintiff money lender that he had no money lending licence and that he lent money Thora-Bahut and that he did not remember how much loan has been granted. This is how I venture to read the Hindi lines quoted in the judgment. 19. His Lordship came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a casual money lender and not a professional money lender, who alone, according to his Lordship, was contemplated within the meaning of S. 2, sub-section 10 of the Rajasthan Act. This finding would be seen at the end of paragraph 6 of the said judgment. 20. Mr. Ghosh, in relation to the Rajasthan case, relied upon the case of Renula Bose vs. Rai Manmatha Nath Bose & other, AIR 1945 PC 108 and placed the first sentence occurring in the first paragraph on the right column of page-109. The said sentence is as follows:- "The Act No. 10 of 1940, was passed to regulate and control moneylenders and money-lending transactions in Bengal and applies to loans made by anyone and not only by professional money-lenders." 21. The said sentence is as follows:- "The Act No. 10 of 1940, was passed to regulate and control moneylenders and money-lending transactions in Bengal and applies to loans made by anyone and not only by professional money-lenders." 21. The above passage is a clear authority for the proposition that the Bengal Act applies to anyone and not only to professional money lenders. In these circumstances, I have to come to the conclusion that the said Rajasthan authority, not binding upon me, would not even be of persuasive authority, in view of the above decision of the Judicial Committee, at least in so far as the construction of the Bengal Act is concerned. 22. In the case of Renula Bose, the Judicial Committee was concerned with what appears to be a single loan given by the Maharaja of Darbhanga. That loan was secured by a mortgage. It does not appear that there were any other loans taken into consideration or that it was anybody's case that because the loan was a single loan, the Bengal Money Lender's Act would not be applicable. 23. Understood in the above context the said passage of Lord Golder quoted above would indicate that a person might not be living by money lending, and yet be a money lender within the meaning of Bengal Act. 24. It appears from the above authorities that in arriving at a true construction of the definition of money lender in the Bengal Act, one should place more emphasis on the attitude of the money lender towards the loan rather than upon the number of loans advanced or the frequency with which such loans have been advanced. Money lending by a businessman would be for profit and thus upon interest. Money lending by a businessman would be to anybody reliable, and not to friends or relations only. Thus, the passage quoted in the Rajasthan case from the English authority, that a money lender should be willing to lend to all and sundry, would be exactly applicable to the Bengal definition. Money lending by a businessman would be to anybody reliable, and not to friends or relations only. Thus, the passage quoted in the Rajasthan case from the English authority, that a money lender should be willing to lend to all and sundry, would be exactly applicable to the Bengal definition. In my opinion, a person who lends money for profit and for earning interest, even to a single individual only on one occasion might well be a money lender within the meaning of the Bengal Act if he satisfies the condition as follows:- "(1) If the money lender has a place of such money lending business then he need not advance even a single loan to become a money lender. (2) If the lender lends for business purpose with interest then he would have to be shown as lending primarily for the motive of lending for profit, and not primarily for the motive of lending a helping hand to a friend or a relation or for some such other primary motive than pure business. 25. In practice, the volume of a money lender's business would be limited by two major factors. The first would be the availability of funds for the purpose of lending. The second would be the availability of reliable and eligible prospective borrowers, who, according to the estimate of the money lender, could be lent money with sufficient security for recovery of principal and interest. That security for a money lender would quite often take the shape only of the creditworthiness of the borrower. 26. Mr. Tibrewal next relied upon the case reported in S. Agarwalla vs. B.K. Mukherjee, AIR 1970 Patna 167 and placed reliance upon the passage on the right column of page-169. He made two points therefrom; first he said that under the Bihar Money Lender's Act the entertainment of a suit itself is barred without the plaintiff satisfying the pre-conditions laid down in the said Act. Secondly he said that the Patna case also lays down that where money lending is casual, or where the plaintiff is not even argued to be a professional money lender, the provisions regarding registration as a money lender would not apply. He said that according to the above case the business of money lending imports a system, repetition and continuity. 27. He said that according to the above case the business of money lending imports a system, repetition and continuity. 27. To my mind, whether the Act stops the filing of a suit altogether or calls for its dismissal, or permanent stay, are matters which are only technically different. The result to the plaintiff is the same, and the result is that he gets no decree without an appropriate money lending licence. Again, for the Bengal Act, it is not necessary for a person to be a professional money lender. Nor is repetition a necessary element, as the definition of money lender does not contain within it the word regular. Under these circumstances, the Patna authority, in my opinion would not be of much assistance to Mr. Tibrewal. 28. Mr. Tibrewal also relied upon the case of Permanand Jain vs. Firm Babulal Jain, AIR 1976 MP 187 and placed paragraph 11 at page 192. He said that a certain degree of system and continuity of transactions is needed for a money lender to come within the mischief of the Act. Mr. Ghosh, however, pointed out that even in the very same paragraph relied upon by Mr. Tibrewal, it would appear that the M.P. Money Lenders' Act applied to a person who in the regular course of business advances a loan. The word regular being present in the M.P. Act, and the said word having been found of legal importance by the highest judicial authority, it would be unsafe to go by principles laid down in the M.P. Case in order to come to a true construction of the Bengal definition 29. The last case relied upon by Mr. Tebriwal is the case of Ka Icilda Wallang vs. U. Lokendra Suiam, AIR 1987 SC 2047 . The short order in the said case which comprises the entire report thereof is set out below:- "ORDER: – Both the appellate Court and the High Court have round that the plaintiff was not a money lender within the meaning or Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934. The High Court observed that a few disconnected and isolated" transactions would not make the plaintiff a person engaged regularly in money lending business. The approach of the High Court to the question was correct. The High Court observed that a few disconnected and isolated" transactions would not make the plaintiff a person engaged regularly in money lending business. The approach of the High Court to the question was correct. We also notice that the defendants did not take the plea that the plaintiff was money-lender in the written statement nor did they adduce any evidence before the trial Court that the plaintiff was a money-lender. In view of this we find no merit in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs." 30. There is no discussion or the Assam Money Lenders' Act in the above order but it does appear that the Supreme Court was concerned about a person engaged regularly in money lending business. Under such circumstances, the approach of the High Court, that a few disconnected and isolated transactions would not constitute engagement regularly in money lending business, was approved by the Supreme Court. Again the presence of the word regular makes all the difference. A few isolated instances or actions can never be regular because, they would lack the rule abiding repetitiveness. On the other hand such stray and isolated transanctions might well constitute business of a non-professional money lender, and theoretically such business might become very lucrative, depending upon the amounts even if only a few advanced. 31. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the admission in the plaint made in paragraph-2 that the loan was advanced to the defendants as and by way of a commercial loan for the purpose of business of the defendants. Mr. Tibrewal at one stage also argued that under the definition clause a commercial loan means a loan advanced to any person, and that the words any person would not include a partnership. He said that from the definition of commercial loan, it appears that such loan might be taken by the borrower as a proprietor or principal or agent or guarantor. He said that since a partnership can never take as a proprietor, but that only a single individual so can, a commercial loan would not be applicable to partnerships. Mr. He said that from the definition of commercial loan, it appears that such loan might be taken by the borrower as a proprietor or principal or agent or guarantor. He said that since a partnership can never take as a proprietor, but that only a single individual so can, a commercial loan would not be applicable to partnerships. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, in the case of Bithika Dutta vs. Belarani Bhattacharya, 84 CWN 711, and showed from paragraph 10 thereof, that it was held in that case, that the four categories of proprietor, principal, agent and guarantor are explanatory, and are not words of limitation. Under these circumstances, a partnership never being a proprietor, would not completely take away the possibility, of a partnership still obtaining a commercial loan, within the meaning of S. 2(4) of the Bengal Act. 32. It is, however, not a matter of any very great importance as to whether the loan obtained was or was not a commercial loan because the exclusion of commercial loans from the definition of loan was itself excluded from the Act in 1981. Whether a loan is a commercial loan or not, might be a valuable question still for some other purpose, like that of interest but would not be so relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the suit is at all to be decreed or not in view of S. 13 of the said Act. 33. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion, that the plaintiff was a money lender within the meaning of the Bengal Act when he advanced the loan in 1985. There is no doubt that the loan was advanced for whatever profit the plaintiff could get; in fact he received two installments of Rs. 20,000/- each. It is also on record that the plaintiff did not previously know the person who actually came to take the loan but that he only knew another person who had introctuced the actual taker of the money. The plaintiff, therefore, like a true money lender doing money-lending business, lent for profit from an established business place, (may be not wholly his own), for profit and interest to a hitherto unknown man, with eligible introduction, who was in need for money for business and had specifically approached the plaintiff for that very reason. 34. In question no. The plaintiff, therefore, like a true money lender doing money-lending business, lent for profit from an established business place, (may be not wholly his own), for profit and interest to a hitherto unknown man, with eligible introduction, who was in need for money for business and had specifically approached the plaintiff for that very reason. 34. In question no. 68 the plaintiff stated that he knew Mohan Anchalia earlier than 10.12.85 but that they met Champalal Anchalia for the first time on 10th December, 1985. There is no suggestion that the loan was advanced for any but business purpose or amongst relations or friends. It must be noted that continuing business relationship amongst two business houses would not class as friendship or relationship but that would be strong evidence of business dealings with one another. In answer to Question No. 60, the witness has stated, that there was khatapeta Account as between the parent firm Bhawarlal Bejoy Kumar, in which the plaintiff's ancestors had interest, and the defendant firm Amolak Chand Champalal. This shows taking of loan on a mutual basis. The plaintiff's further case is that the loan was granted from the same business place, where, according to him, as stated in the cause title of the plaint, he was carrying on business at least 1989. The plaintiff has also said that there might be one or two other cases of his having granted loans. 35. On the above basis, there cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff granted loan on a business basis, and by application of the principles of law discussed above, he would be a money lender within the definition of the Bengal Act contained in sub-section 2(13). It is unnecessary to consider whether he would also be a money lender within the definition of any of the other Money Lenders Acts of the other States of India. 36. The second question is, that, even if the plaintiff is a money lender, what happens to the suit itself ? I have already quoted S. 13 of the Act above and it would be material also to quote Ss. 36. The second question is, that, even if the plaintiff is a money lender, what happens to the suit itself ? I have already quoted S. 13 of the Act above and it would be material also to quote Ss. 8, 9, 10 and 14 there from which are reproduced below:- "S. 8 – Money lending business not to be carried on except under license-After such date not less than six months after the commencement of this Act as the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, no money lender shall carry on the business of money-lending unless he holds an effective licence. Explanation – An effective licence for the purposes of this Act comprises a licence issued to a person who is not• disqualified for holding a licence. Section 9. Licences – (1) A licence shall be valid throughout the whole of West Bengal for a period of three years from the date of its issue or until it is cancelled. (2) On the expiration of the period for which the licence was granted or on the cancellation of a licence it shall be returned by the money-lender to the Sub-Registrar who issued it. Section 10. Licence fees – There shall be paid to the State Government a fee of twenty five rupees for a licence issued under this Act:- Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, remit any part of such fee either generally or for any particular class of money-lenders. Section 14. Disqualification of person for holding a licence:- (1) A person shall be disqualified for holding a licence:- (a) If so ordered by a Court under S. 20, for the period ordered. (b) If he has been convicted of any offence specified in the Schedule to this Act and if such conviction has not been set aside by any Court of appeal or revision under any law for the time being in force. (2) The State Government may, at any time, on application in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee, remove a disqualification referred to in sub-section (1), having regard to the time which has elapsed since the order and the circumstances under which it was made or to the time which has elapsed since the conviction and to the nature of the offence." 37. In attempting to construe the first sub-section of S. 13, Mr. Ghosh submitted that words effective licence occurring at the end thereof should be given due emphasis. He said that sub-section (2) and (3), and the penalty prescribed therein, would be payable only by a money-lender, who held some licence at the time of giving the loan, but that the said licence was not effective within the meaning of the Act. I am unable to accede to the said submission of Mr. Ghosh. A person holds an effective licence only when he holds a licence and the same is effective. A person does not hold an effective licence either when his licence is not effective within the meaning of the Act or when he does not hold any licence at all. 38. The mere material consideration for a construction of S. 13 would, in my opinion, be that no decree can be passed in favour of a plaintiff money lender unless he held an effective licence at the time of the loan. Once that time is passed, and the loan has been given, the difficulty is no longer curable. The loan shall never ripen into a decree in Bengal. The prohibition of S. 13(1) is clear and wholly effective. 39. The point then arises, as to what is the use of the plaintiff being permitted to pay penalty, within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S. 13, if the plaintiff can, upon payment of such penalty, only proceed with the suit, but has to step short of having a decree passed in his favour ? 40. The other point, of at least equal, and, in my opinion, of greater perplexity is, that it is difficult to follow, as to what the legislature was intending to achieve, by enacting a detailed Act, as to control of money lending business, if it merely intended that, prior to obtaining a decree, the money lender will have to pay three times the licence fee which, according to the present rate, work out to only 75/-. No money lender granting any substantial loan would bother to obtain any licence if the only penalty were that he would have to pay Seventy Five rupees prior to obtaining a decree. 41. I am therefore faced with two unsavoury choices. No money lender granting any substantial loan would bother to obtain any licence if the only penalty were that he would have to pay Seventy Five rupees prior to obtaining a decree. 41. I am therefore faced with two unsavoury choices. I must either construe sub-section (2) and (3) of S. 13 as being of practically no value to the plaintiff, or I must alternatively construe the entire Act to be of no value of the regulating (3) would enable the plaintiff to proceed, but proceed fruitlessly. In the other line of construction, the Government would be permitted to make rules and regulations, regarding money lending business, but only to be defeated, by any money lender who is prepared to pay a penalty of seventy five rupees, prior to obtaining a decree in any suit of his against a borrower. 42. To speak very plainly, I would rather make a nonsense of sub-section (2) and (3) of S. 13, than make a nonsense of the entire scheme of the Act. 43. Mr. Ghosh correctly relied upon the case of Maniruddin Ahmed vs. Uma Prasana, 64 CWN 20 and placed the passage at page-30 (left column bottom) for the proposition that the control of money lending had a public policy behind it. Such public policy would be defeated if I have to construe S. 13 as permitting a decree to be passed in favour of a licenceless money lender only upon a payment of seventy five rupees. 44. Mr. Ghosh also relied on a five Judge decision in the case of Pappatlal Shah vs. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274 and placed paragraph 7 from the judgment of Dr. B.K. Mukherjee, J. The learned Judge there had said:- "It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself." 45. The object of the Act as set out in the preamble is as follows:- "An Act further to regulate transaction of money lending in Bengal. Whereas it is expedient to make further and better provision for the control of money lenders and for the regulation and control of money lending." 46. The object of the Act as set out in the preamble is as follows:- "An Act further to regulate transaction of money lending in Bengal. Whereas it is expedient to make further and better provision for the control of money lenders and for the regulation and control of money lending." 46. This object would be defeated, if I were to adopt the construction to S. 13, favouring the passing of a decree upon payment of penalty only, even without licence being held, by the plaintiff money lender at the material time of loan. 47. Under these circumstances, the wholly unmeritorious, but legally and technically sound defence of the defendant succeeds. The suit must fail and the same is dismissed. However, since the defendant has admittedly taken a loan and not repaid it, the recovery of which is barred by reasons of extreme technicality, the defendants shall pay the costs of this suit to the plaintiff assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. 48. The parties, the department and all others concerned will act upon a signed copy of this judgment and decree on the usual undertakings. Suit dismissed but since on technical grounds, plaintiff awarded costs of the suit assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.