Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.26 seconds)Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974
Section 8 in Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Bishwanath Jha vs Chandeshwar Jha And Ors. on 22 March, 1983
In the case of Bishwanath Jha v. Chandeshwar Jha, 1983 BBCJ 388 : (AIR 1983 Patna 267), a Bench of this court has held that Section 7(5) of the Act is not retrospective and that it does not apply to loans advanced prior, to coming into force of the Act. In that case not only the loan was advanced prior to the enforcement of the Act but the suit also for recovery of the amount was filed prior to enforcement of the Act.
Ram Lakhan Prasad And Ors. vs Narain Prasad on 30 July, 1984
On these facts, the learned Judges were of the view that Section 7(5) of the Act was not a bar but in the case at hand although the loans were advanced prior to the enforcement of the Act, the suit was filed subsequent to it. This situation was considered by Hari Lal Agrawal, J. (as he then was) in the case of Ram Lakhan Prasad v. Narain Prasad, AIR 1986 Patna 154, who was of the view that the suit is not hit by Section 7(5) of the Act.
Kripal Rai vs Ram Lakhan Rai on 9 August, 1984
B. P. Sinna, J., on the other hand, was of the view in the case of Kripal Rai v. Ram Lakhan Rai, AIR 1986 Patna 156 that although the loan was advanced prior to the enforcement of the Act but the plaintiff had to comply with the requirement of Section 7(5) of the Act if the suit was instituted after 20-3-1975, the day when the Act came into force. Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly relied on the judgment given by Hari Lal Agrawal, J. (as he then was) whereas counsel for the defendant-appellant bases his stand on the judgment by B. P. Sinha, J. Hari Lal Agrawal, J. was of the view that although there was a provision for maintenance of regular records on account of each debtor mentioning the details provided in the section yet the noncompliance of that could not result in the dismissal of the suit. In that view of the matter Hari Lal Agrawal, J. was of the view that there may be cases where the money lenders did not keep the records as provided under Section 7 of the Act and in case the view was taken that in such cases also money-lender will have to file extract of entries relating to loans in question then the suit will fail because it will not be possible to comply with the requirement. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am not able to agree with the view. Section 7 of the old Act did make mandatory provision for maintenance of the accounts in the manner prescribed. It isa different matter that there was no provision for filing of the extracts relating to the entries of the loans in question in a suit for recovery of the loans advanced. But there were other penalties provided under the Act. The new Act in addition to Sections 33, 34 and 35 also included Section 7(5) prescribing that the money-lender shall file a copy of the relevant extract from his register of accounts relating to the loan in question andshall not be entitled to maintain any claim beyond the entry made in his register of accounts. This provision like other provision of the Act which was enacted, inter alia, "to grant relief to debtor in the State of Bihar" (as appears from the preamble) was included with a view to put a brake on manipulation exercised by the money-lenders. Since there was no provision like Section 7(5) of the new Act in the old Act, the money-lenders were free to manipulate the accounts, but with the introduction of Section 7(5) the moneylenders have been left with no option but to maintain the accounts in case they intend to go in action for recovery of the loan advanced. Therefore, in my view, Section 7(5) of the Act will apply to such cases also where the loans might have been advanced prior to the enforcement of the Act but the suit was filed after the enforcement of the Act. I am conscious of the difficulty posed by Hari Lal Agrawal, J. in his judgment referred to above. But that can easily be solved. Section 7 of the Act does not provide that the entry regarding the date of loan, etc. should be made contemporaneously. It can be made subsequently also within a reasonable period. Therefore, if a particular money-lender did not maintain the account on the date when the new Act came into force, he could very well have prepared the account after I he Act came into force and could file the exlrael of the same in the suit as prescribed under Sub-section (5) to Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, in conclusion, I am in respectful agreement with B. P. Sinha, J. In this case admittedly extracts as required under Section 7(5) of the Act were not filed. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot maintain any claim for recovery of the loans said to have been advanced by him.
Section 33 in Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
1