TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the High Court could interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the subordinate court, on an erroneous view of law, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; (ii) whether the loan was a commercial loan within the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940; (iii) whether the mortgage suit was a suit to which the Act applied because a suit or proceeding was pending on 1 January 1939.
Issue (i): whether the High Court could interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the subordinate court, on an erroneous view of law, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
Analysis: An error within jurisdiction does not by itself justify revision. But where the subordinate court's erroneous view leads it to refuse to exercise a jurisdiction that the law requires it to exercise, the case falls within Section 115(b). The subordinate court, having held the loan to be commercial, dismissed the application without considering the statutory relief otherwise claimed. On the view taken by the High Court that the loan was not commercial, revision was therefore competent.
Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to interfere in revision, and this objection failed.
Issue (ii): whether the loan was a commercial loan within the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940.
Analysis: A commercial loan is one advanced solely for business or other mercantile purposes. The written instrument described the transaction as a loan for business, but it also referred to money required for business and other expenses. The burden of proving that the loan was commercial lay on the lender. On the terms of the document, the purpose was not confined solely to business, and the lender did not discharge the burden.
Conclusion: The loan was not proved to be a commercial loan, and the Act applied.
Issue (iii): whether the mortgage suit was a suit to which the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 applied because a suit or proceeding was pending on 1 January 1939.
Analysis: The original mortgage suit had long been filed, so the question was whether some suit or proceeding remained pending on the statutory date. The Court rejected the contention that a delay in recording delivery of possession kept the execution proceeding alive, and was not persuaded that a third-party application under Order 21 Rule 100 was itself a proceeding in execution for this purpose. The Court accepted that the compromise decree did not create an immediately existing personal decree for an unascertained future balance; rather, it contemplated only a consent to future recovery if any balance were lawfully found due. Accordingly, the suit remained pending while the right to seek such relief subsisted.
Conclusion: The suit was one to which the Act applied.
Final Conclusion: The statutory objections failed, the money-lending transaction was not commercial, and the respondents were entitled to reopen the decree under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an erroneous finding on a jurisdictional fact causes a court to refuse to exercise a jurisdiction it is bound to exercise, revision lies under Section 115; and, for a loan to be commercial under the Money-lenders Act, the lender must prove that it was advanced solely for business or mercantile purposes.
TaxTMI 
