Appellant's defense rejected; suit not under Money Lenders Act; appeal dismissed; deposit extension granted

The court found no defense for the appellant on the merits of the case, rejecting the argument that the suit was solely based on the loan and not on dishonored cheques and bills of exchange. Additionally, the court determined that the suit was not barred under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, as the loans were advanced based on negotiable instruments and not falling within the Act's scope. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was given an extension to deposit the amount until 31.12.2014.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant has any defense on the merits of the case.
2. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Defense on the Merits:
The appellant admitted to receiving the claimed amount of Rs. 67 crores and failing to repay it. The appellant also acknowledged issuing cheques and bills of exchange to the respondents and executing writings admitting the receipt of Rs. 67 crores, assuring the respondents that the cheques would be honored upon presentation. The appellant's contention that the suit is based solely on the loan and not on the cheques and bills of exchange is rejected. The court noted that the suit is indeed based on the dishonored cheques, bills of exchange, and written promises to repay the loan. The plaint and the documents relied upon clearly establish that the suit is based on these instruments, and not merely on the loan. Therefore, the appellant has no defense on the merits of the case.

2. Applicability of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946:
The appellant argued that the claim is barred under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, asserting that the respondents were carrying on money lending business without a license. This defense was raised belatedly and is considered an afterthought, not a bona fide defense. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Section 2(9) and Section 10. Section 2(9) excludes advances made on the basis of negotiable instruments from the definition of "loan." The court concluded that the loans in question were advanced on the basis of negotiable instruments (cheques and bills of exchange), and therefore, do not fall within the purview of the Act. The arrangement between the parties was a composite agreement, where the cheques and bills of exchange were part of the original loan agreement, even if handed over subsequently. Consequently, the suit is not barred by the Bombay Money Lenders Act.

Conclusion:
The court found no defense to the suit on merits and rejected the appellant's contention that the suit is barred under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted an extension to deposit the amount until 31.12.2014.

---