JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows:–– This is an application under Chapter-XXIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court for pronouncing final judgment. The fact in the affidavit in support of the Master's Summons is summarised as hereunder :–– 2. The plaintiff lent a substantial amount as inter-corporate loan, which has not been paid. One point of time parties struck to settlement for repayment. The settlement was that the defendant should pay a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- and the plaintiff will accept as full time settlement. Apart from the aforesaid amount parties agreed that the defendant should pay further sum of Rs, 44,476/- as and by way of interest for the period from 1st April, 2001 to 12th July, 2001. The aforesaid interest amount was calculated after deducting a sum of Rs. 11,398/- towards tax deduction at source. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement and acting thereupon the defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 11 lacs. However, the said cheque was dishonoured by non-payment. Therefore, the plaintiff sues the defendant for recovery of the entire amount of loan in view of settlement being fallen through. 3. I understand from the plaint and the affidavit-in-support of the Master's Summons that the suit is based not only on the basis of the agreement for repayment of the loan but on the ground of dishonour of the aforesaid cheque. 4. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for recovery of the entire amount regardless of the settlement. In the affidavit-in-opposition, on merit, I prima facie find, no substance in the defence, excepting the point raised in casual manner that the suit is not maintainable under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 Mr. Saha was emphasising the above point in support of the case. He submits that the plaintiff/petitioner being the money lender does not possess any licence under the Bengal Money lenders Act, 1940. Therefore, even non-production of licence per se is an issue which required to be tried at the time of the trial of the suit. He also submits that under the said law there is no embargo to file suit but no Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit unless the licence is produced or the penalty is deposited under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. He further contends that trial of the suit is possible only after filing of written statement. He also submits that under the said law there is no embargo to file suit but no Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit unless the licence is produced or the penalty is deposited under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. He further contends that trial of the suit is possible only after filing of written statement. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 1994(1) CHN 49 and another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2) 2000 (2) CLJ 185 , lastly, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (3) AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1420. 5. Upon proper reading of the Sections 10, 13 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, it has also been observed by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2002(2) CLJ 185 that there is no embargo to file a suit by un-licensed money lender but embargo has been put under statute against trial of the suit and passing decree without effective licence being produced. Even, the Bench has gone further by saying that the trial can be proceeded with and the decree, may be passed once the licence has been shown to the Court, or imposing penalty. The Supreme Court's decision as above is wholly inappropriate as in that case Hyderabad Money Lenders Act, 1849 was under reference and the same has provision for dismissal of suit of un-licensed money lender, but in corresponding Act in Bengal there is no such provision. 6. Mr. Saha submits that in Harayana Money Lenders Act there is a provision that the suit has to be dismissed in the event no licence is produced but in the Act of this case there is no such provision for dismissal of the suit because of non-production of licence rather the statute requires that payment of penalty to remove the legal infirmity to maintain suit by an un-licensed money lender. 7. The next point is whether this Act is applicable or not. Mr. Banerjee has submitted that there is no whisper in the affidavit-in-opposition that the plaintiff/petitioner is a money lender or for that matter the plaintiff has described itself in the plaint to be a money lender. Only casual statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the suit is barred by Bengal Money Lenders Act. Mr. Banerjee has submitted that there is no whisper in the affidavit-in-opposition that the plaintiff/petitioner is a money lender or for that matter the plaintiff has described itself in the plaint to be a money lender. Only casual statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the suit is barred by Bengal Money Lenders Act. I fail to find out any such provision in the Act that suit cannot be filed by an unlicensed lender rather suit can be filed and this cannot be proceeded with in the event the aforesaid statutory requirements are not fulfilled. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant in the affidavit is without any substance for which no issue, not speak of a triable issue, is raised or can be raised in the written statement. 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court has held in an unreported judgment, as cited and relied on by Mr. Banerjee rendered in G.A. No. 3742 of and C. S. No. 132 of 2000, (4) Sm. Uma Kanoria v. Pradip Kumar Daga, that without any specific averment either in their plaint or in the written statement about the factum of money lending business and applicability of the Money Lenders Act, no issue can be raised. Under such circumstances, I hold that the defendant has failed to raise any defence for which trial is necessary. The defence in my view is a moonshine one and in order to wrangle out his obligation to pay the money as above. 9. The suit is based not only on failure to pay of the plaintiff's dues but also on the ground of dishonour of the cheque which is independent of all other causes of action under Section 117 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 2 (12) (e) of the said Act. 9. The suit is based not only on failure to pay of the plaintiff's dues but also on the ground of dishonour of the cheque which is independent of all other causes of action under Section 117 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 2 (12) (e) of the said Act. It will be utterly inappropriate if the said Section 117 of Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 2 (12) (e) of the said Act are not refund to, so the said section is reproduced hereunder :–– "S. 117 Rules as to compensation––The compensation payable in case of dishonour of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque, by any party liable to the holder or any indorsee, shall (***) be determined by the following rules –– (a) the holder is entitled to the amount due upon the instrument, together with the expenses properly incurred in presenting, nothing and protesting it; (b) when the person charged resides at a place different from that at which the instrument was payable, the holder is entitled to receive such sum at the current rate of exchange between the two places; (c) an indorser who, being liable, has paid the amount due on the same is entitled to the amount so paid with interest at six per centum per annum from the date of payment until tender or realization thereof, together with all expenses caused by the dishonour and payment; (d) when the person charged and such indorser reside at different places, the indorser is entitled to receive such sum at the current rate of exchange between the two places; (e) the party entitled to compensation may draw a bill upon the party liable to compensate him, payable at sight or on demant for the amount due to him, together with all expenses properly incurred by him. Such bill must be accompanied by the instrument dishonoured and the protest thereof (if any). If such bill is dishonoured, the party dishonouring the same is liable to make compensation thereof in the same manner as in the case of the original bill." "Section 2(12) (e)––and advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, other than a promissory note." 10. The Cheque has been defined in Section 6 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which says it is one kind of bill of exchange. The Cheque has been defined in Section 6 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which says it is one kind of bill of exchange. As per definition of 'loan' of the said bill of exchange not the promissory note, is excluded. In this case the said sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- was sought to be paid by cheque and this right of compensation for dishonoured cheque cannot be termed to be recovery of loan. Therefore, the application must succeed to the extent of the amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-. I am not inclined to pronounce any judgment on the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff. Hence, I pronounce judgment finally on this application on the sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-. There will be a decree accordingly. 11. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on and from 31st March, 2001 till the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to an interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. The rest of the claims, if any, stands for trial of the suit. Costs cost in the cause. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.