MAKHAN LAL DEB Vs. BARUA BHAR @ BARU BHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WAS Shylock a sinner? How Shakespeare depicted him, oritics will always differ: What is then the universal truth valid for all times and climes? Usury is abhorrent, not money lending per se. Because, banking fulfils social needs. Money lending is but its crude form. It may not be progressive. But has it outlived its utility for all people?

(2.) PRIVATE business in Money lending may not be appreciable today to modern taste or to the prevalent social norms. What the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934, for short the Act, purported to achieve ? In those days when modern banking was unknown in the country side needy people it cannot be disputed, had to depend on the mahajans or money tenders., Sometime money was needed to save a life, sometime to save a family from destitution when any natural calamity befell it. Can it be said that the legislature was not cognizant of this situation? Was the Act enacted to make money lenders themselves destitutes or to stop the service they were rendering to the society in those days?

(3.) WHAT is challenged in this Court in these proceedings is the decree of affirmance passed by the teamed Assistant District Judge, Karimganj in Money Appeal No. 12/79 upholding the dismissal of Money Suit which the Plaintiff -Petitioner filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 660/ - as principal and interest due to him under two promotes executed by the Defendant -opp. party. Both courts unsuited the Plaintiff operating against him the bar of Section 7D of the Act. The concurrent finding of the courts below which is binding on me is that the Plaintiff -Petitioner was carrying on the business of money lending on the date on which the suit was instituted and that he did not hold a valid certificates of registration for carrying on the said business as contemplated under the Act. Section 7D is as follows: