JUDGMENT : Indra Prasanna Mukerji, J. G.A. 993 of 2012 connected with C.S. 282 of 2011 The cause of action of the plaintiff in this suit is recovery of moneys lent and advanced by them to the defendants. Between 2nd July, 2007 and 3rd April, 2008 a total sum of Rs. 70 lakhs was lent and advanced. The money was credited into the joint accounts of the defendants. 2. Admittedly, there was no agreement between the parties for payment of interest. The defendant sought to make part payment of the said loan by a cheque dated 30th November, 2008 for Rs. 20 lakhs and two cheques for Rs. 20 lakhs each of the same date. All these cheques were dishonoured. The reason assigned by the bank was insufficiency of funds. Then again in September, 2009 the defendants tried to make part payment of the above debt by two cheques for Rs. 20 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs respectively, which were also dishonoured in the same manner. 3. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the plaintiff submits that these payments were unconditional admission of liability by the defendants. Furthermore, they represented part payment. 4. The suit was instituted on 29th November, 2011; the writ of summons was served upon the defendants in January, 2012; the defendants entered appearance on 24th January, 2012. This Chapter XIII-A application was taken out on 11th April, 2012 before filing of a written statement by the defendants. 5. The defence sought to be advanced by the defendants is most astounding. 6. The first point of defence was that the plaintiff was an incorporated company. It did not have registration as a Non-Banking Financial Institution, as allegedly required by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to enable the company to lend and advance money. It was also submitted from the bar that the plaintiff did not have a licence under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. The defendants denied that Rs. 70 Lakhs or any part thereof were lent and advanced to the plaintiff. The sum allegedly lent and advanced by the plaintiff was not real, it was only a "paper entry". Cheques were drawn in favour of the defendants. Soon thereafter the plaintiff received back the entire money in cash. The first defendant retained his commission only. The cash was handed over under the direction of one Kailash Agarwal, a director of the plaintiff. 7. Cheques were drawn in favour of the defendants. Soon thereafter the plaintiff received back the entire money in cash. The first defendant retained his commission only. The cash was handed over under the direction of one Kailash Agarwal, a director of the plaintiff. 7. Furthermore, it was submitted that ten blank cheques were handed over to the plaintiff. 8. The dishonoured cheques have been explained in this way. The plaintiff utilised the blank cheques scanned the signature of the first defendant and printed the same on the cheques. 9. The defence of the defendants is most difficult to accept. The plaintiff has annexed statements of accounts of HDFC Bank Limited, Stephen House, BBD Bagh, Kolkata which maintained in their account. These moneys according to the plaintiff were paid by cheques dated 2nd July, 2007, 15th September, 2007, 1st February, 2008, 27th March, 2008 and 3rd April, 2008. The first two and the last transactions were worth for Rs. 10 Lakhs each. The third and fourth were for Rs. 20 lakhs each. 10. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff giving details of the statements of accounts shows that these amounts were actually debited from the bank account. He submitted, which I accept that there were corresponding credit entries in the joint bank accounts of the defendants. No evidence whatsoever was brought on record by the defendants to show that these moneys, as alleged by them, were very quickly withdrawn from the account of the defendants, in cash, and handed back to the plaintiff or its representative. 11. Furthermore, there is no correspondence whatsoever to suggest the case now made out in the affidavit-in-opposition. 12. This story about blank cheques being handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants, whereon, the scanned signature of the defendants was printed is most difficult to believe. All the dishonoured cheques were returned by the bank, upon advice and the defendants, in my opinion were fully aware that the plaintiff had presented three cheques dated 30th November, 2008 and two cheques of September, 2009. All these cheques were dishonoured by non-payment for insufficiency of funds. Once again, there is no correspondence, no record, no other document disclosed by the defendants to show that contemporaneously they had alleged, fraud and forgery. 13. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff carried on business as a money lender or as a financial institution. All these cheques were dishonoured by non-payment for insufficiency of funds. Once again, there is no correspondence, no record, no other document disclosed by the defendants to show that contemporaneously they had alleged, fraud and forgery. 13. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff carried on business as a money lender or as a financial institution. Therefore, on the available evidence I do not think that the plaintiff, required any licence under Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 or by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 14. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (M/s. Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers, Appellant v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, Respondent.) AIR 1977 SC 577 followed the decision of this Court in the leading case of Sm. Kiranmoyee Dassi v. Dr. J. Chatterjee, (1945) 49 Cal. W.N. on the subject. The principles have been formulated in paragraph 8 of the judgment as follows: (a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he had a defence, yet, shows such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave defend. (d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave defend. (e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence. 15. It is true that if the defendant has no defence, the Court has the power, in appropriate cases, to grant him leave to defend, upon furnishing security, to the satisfaction of the Court. This is referred to in the judgment as a sympathy ground. Such leave is granted by the Court, in my opinion, when the Court wants to give opportunity to the defendant to gather and produce more substantial evidence at the time of the trial. 16. But in this case I am afraid, not only the defendants have been unable to disclose any evidence, but they have made every attempt to create a controversy and cause confusion in the mind of the Court when there was none. There is no question of any "paper entry" because money has actually been credited into the account of the defendants without any corresponding debit having been done. The alleged circumstances cited by the defendants of circulation of money whereby the money came back to the plaintiff is not evidenced by any document. The Court can appreciate lack of evidence and grant leave to the defendant out of sympathy, imposing certain terms and conditions. But the Court does not like a litigant who tries to confuse and mislead the Court. 17. I hold that the defendants do not have any defence whatsoever to the claim of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has been able to prove their case on the available evidence in a summary manner. 18. Hence, I pass judgment in favour of the plaintiff. This Chapter XIIIA application is allowed by passing a final judgment and decree in terms of prayer (a) of the Master's Summons. 19. Further, the plaintiff has been able to prove their case on the available evidence in a summary manner. 18. Hence, I pass judgment in favour of the plaintiff. This Chapter XIIIA application is allowed by passing a final judgment and decree in terms of prayer (a) of the Master's Summons. 19. I do not find any agreement with regard to interest. I find that the defendants purported to make payment of Rs. 90 Lakhs between 30th November, 2008 and September, 2009 including an interest amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, interest liability is admitted. Therefore, at least from 1st October, 2009, the plaintiff should be granted interest on the principal sum of Rs. 70 lakhs. I grant interest on the said sum @ 7% per cent per annum simple interest from 1st October, 2009 till realization. 20. Nothing remains of the suit. The suit is also decreed. C.S. 281 of 2011, G.A. 994 of 2012 21. The facts, transactions and defence taken by the defendants in this application are absolutely identical to the above case. The principal sum is Rs. 55,50,000/-, Rs. 26,50,000/- were lent and advanced on 20th May, 2008, Rs. 21,50,000/- was again made over on 19th June, 2008. On 4th July, 2008, a further sum of Rs. 7,50,000 was lent and advanced. A part payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- was made by the defendants on 11th July, 2008. 22. Cheques for Rs. 48 lacs were dishonoured. Following the reasoning in the other matter (GA 993 of 2012) I hold that the defendants have no defence, to the claim of the plaintiff in this suit. 23. This application is allowed by passing a final judgment and decree for Rs. 48,00,000/-. 24. In this case, there is no acknowledgement of interest. Hence no interest is awarded. However, the plaintiff will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum simple interest post decree till realization. 25. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/decree, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.