SAMYUKTHA SAMAJAM Vs. KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the decree in a Small Cause suit. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit on a finding that the Samyuktha Samajam, which is the plaintiff consisting of 15 members and that banking is one of the activities of that Samajam. The learned Munsiff states in his judgment that the first witness for the plaintiff admits that the Samajam "has been formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of banking and other allied business for the profits of the members". The deposition of the witness was read before me. What he says is merely that the Samajam used to lend money on interest besides doing other activities in connection with cocoanut kernels. Mr. Narayana Pillai, learned Counsel for the Respondent sought to support the Munsiff's judgment by reference to Ext. A which is the Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff Samajam which shows that an earlier association was investing money on security of jewels and the balance outstanding under those transactions formed the capital of the Samyuktha Samajam. This piece of evidence obviously will not constitute the Samajam one that carries on the business of banking. Mr. Narayana Pillai invited my attention to the definition of the term 'banking' in the Banking Companies Act, X of 1949 which has been made applicable to the State by subsequent legislation. S.5, Cl. 1 (b), gives the definition of 'banking' as follows.

(2.) It is clear from this definition that acceptance of deposits is sini qua non to a constitute banking business. There is no evidence in the case to show that the Samajam was either formed for accepting deposits or was actually accepting deposits at any time. The result is that the only ground on which the judgment of the Court below is based namely that the plaintiff Samajam does the business of banking and therefore there being more than 10 members it is compulsorily registerable under the Companies Act and not having been so registered the suit on behalf of the same is not maintainable is non existent and the decree passed by the Court below dismissing the suit cannot be supported. The decree of the Court below is therefore set aside and the civil revision petition allowed with costs. As the claim of the plaintiff has been proved there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff as sued for.

(3.) There is a Memorandum of Objection filed on behalf of the respondent which is without substance and is therefore dismissed but there will be no order for costs.