VIKRAM BACHHAWAT Vs. SUDHA KANKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is for recovery of money arising out of money lent and advanced. This application is filed for judgment upon admission.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of this case are as follows:

(3.) On behalf of the respondent it is contended that, the petitioner being a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is not competent to institute this suit in its own name. It is further contended that, the aforesaid transaction between the parties is barred under the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. It is also alleged that the entire loan was financed through a broker, Shanti Kumar Surana and the same was negotiated by the deceased husband of the respondent. It is also contended that the respondent has handed over three antiques paintings and antique wall mirrors to the respondent in an attempt to square off the outstanding dues payable to the petitioner. Though, the petitioner has agreed to take the aforesaid paintings and mirrors in discharge of the entire outstanding dues, the petitioner refused to record the same in writing.