Disputed debt and agricultural borrowing rules barred winding up, while repeated tea finance advances amounted to money lending.

Regular advances made in connection with tea sales were treated as money lending because the lender advanced money repeatedly over several years on interest, not as an isolated transaction. Tea plantation and tea production were treated as agricultural activities, so compound interest with quarterly rests on such borrowings was not enforceable as claimed. A winding-up petition could not be sustained where the debt was substantially disputed on facts and law, since winding up is not a substitute for debt recovery. The order admitting the winding-up petition was set aside, and the lender was left to pursue recovery in the proper forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether advances made at 22% interest with quarterly rests in connection with sale of tea through the respondent attracted the Assam Money Lenders' Act, 1934. (ii) Whether tea plantation and tea production are agricultural activities so that compound interest on the advance was impermissible. (iii) Whether a winding-up petition was maintainable where the debt was disputed in part.

Issue (i): Whether advances made at 22% interest with quarterly rests in connection with sale of tea through the respondent attracted the Assam Money Lenders' Act, 1934.

Analysis: The statutory definitions of money lender, interest, and loan show that the Act applies where a person, in the regular course of business, advances money on repayment with interest. The respondent had regularly advanced money to the appellant and to other tea companies over a period of years, not as an isolated transaction. Its conduct was found to be in the nature of money lending, notwithstanding that its principal business was tea brokerage.

Conclusion: The respondent's activity fell within the meaning of money lending under the Assam Money Lenders' Act, 1934.

Issue (ii): Whether tea plantation and tea production are agricultural activities so that compound interest on the advance was impermissible.

Analysis: Tea cultivation and tea production were treated as agricultural activities having regard to the nature of plantation operations. On that footing, the rule against capitalisation of interest on agricultural borrowings applied, and compound interest with quarterly rests could not be enforced in the manner claimed. The earlier order had failed to consider this material issue.

Conclusion: Tea plantation and tea production are agricultural activities, and compound interest on such advances was not permissible as claimed.

Issue (iii): Whether a winding-up petition was maintainable where the debt was disputed in part.

Analysis: Winding up is not a substitute for debt recovery where the claim is not indisputably enforceable. Since the respondent's claim raised substantial disputes both on facts and on law, the petition could not be sustained as a winding-up action.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not maintainable on the basis of the disputed claim.

Final Conclusion: The order admitting the winding-up petition was set aside, and the respondent was left free to pursue recovery in an appropriate proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding-up petition cannot be maintained where the alleged debt is substantially disputed, especially when the underlying transaction is found to involve regulated money lending and the claimed interest is unenforceable in respect of agricultural borrowings.

---