The Calcutta High Court has refused to reject a money recovery suit at the preliminary stage, holding that the questions surrounding the nature of the financial transaction and the applicability of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act require proper examination during trial.
Justice Aniruddha Roy was hearing a plea by Ashoka Hawai and Shoes Pvt Ltd seeking rejection of the plaint filed by Divij Mercantiles Private Limited. The defendant argued that the dispute did not qualify as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and was also barred by the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940.
Background of the Case
According to the plaint, Divij Mercantiles claimed that it had advanced ₹65 lakh to the defendant through bank transfers between January and September 2020. The amount was allegedly repayable with interest at 12% per annum.
The plaintiff also relied on its ledger, bank statements and tax-related records. It claimed that the defendant had made a part-payment of ₹1,37,650 towards interest and had also deposited tax deducted at source in relation to the interest payable.
The defendant, however, contended that the plaint did not refer to any written agreement or mercantile document establishing that the transaction was commercial in nature. It further argued that the plaintiff had not shown that it possessed the required certificate under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act.
Court's Observation
Justice Roy noted that the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act does not specifically require a written contract. The Court also considered the various documents referred to in the plaint and held that the nature of the transaction first needed to be determined.
The Court observed:
"From the case made out in the plaint, it cannot be summarily said that the transaction between the parties, ex facie, is not a commercial transaction or that the dispute stated in the plaint, ex facie, is not a commercial dispute within the meaning of CC Act, unless a proper trial takes place on the issue."
The Court further explained that rejection of a plaint at the threshold is appropriate where the bar is apparent from a meaningful reading of the pleadings. But where an arguable and triable issue exists, the plaintiff should not be non-suited summarily.
On the defendant's objection under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Dutta Vinimay Private Limited v. Dinesh Singh, observing that the statute contains a provision allowing the defect to be cured before rejection of the plaint.
The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court order cited by the defendant in Raj Kumar Santoshi v. Prashant Malik, noting that the matter there concerned criminal proceedings rather than rejection of a civil plaint.
Decision
The High Court held that the plaint should stand for trial. The defendant was given liberty to raise all objections concerning maintainability, including those under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, during the trial.
The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of those objections. The application seeking rejection of the plaint, GA-COM/11/2025, was accordingly dismissed without costs, while the other two applications were directed to appear under the appropriate heading in due course.
-300x169.webp)