WASSIAMULL ASSOMULL AND CO. Vs. GOODLUCK PICTURES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.] As regards the. contention, that the plaintiffs are moneylenders and are not entitled to maintain this suit except under a licence obtained under the Bombay Money -lenders Act, it is relevant to notice certain provisions of the Act. The contention is based on Section 10, the relevant part whereof runs as follows: -

(2.) IN the above connection, certain provisions of the Act are relevant. The phrase "the suit to which this Act. applies" is defined in Section 2(77) as follows: -

(3.) THE question, therefore, that arises for decision is as to whether defendant No. T firm is a trader within the meaning of Section 2(78). Admittedly, the business of defendants No. 1 was film production. In that connection, it appears from the pleadings that defendants No. 1, apart from many other activities, indulged into activities of selling distribution rights of the film that they were producing to diverse parties. Thus it is stated in the pleadings that the distribution rights of the film were sold to Century Films. They were also sold to Messrs. Forward Films Ltd., Lahore, and Aga Films, Karachi.. It is, however, true that these rights that they were selling were not of goods purchased from the market, but were in respect of the film that they were producing. Apart from the word "and" as contained in the above definition of "trader", one could easily, having regard to the above position, hold that because defendants No. 1 in its regular course of business sold this property, it is a trader.