Presence of triable issues regarding money-lending licenses precludes summary decree under Chapter XIIIA.

The Appellant (holding the status of defendant in the original suit) challenged a judgment and decree dated January 15, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge

The Single Judge had granted a summary decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- with 15% interest per annum in a suit for recovery of money

The Appellant contended that the Respondent is an unlicensed money lender under the West Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, and further argued that the suit involved a commercial dispute that ought to have been governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

The Respondent maintained that the transaction was an "accommodation loan" due to personal acquaintance and did not constitute money-lending business

Section 13 of the West Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, which prohibits a court from passing a decree in favor of a money-lender unless satisfied that the lender held an effective license at the time of the loan

the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5485/2024 (Orders dated July 23, 2024; February 16, 2026; and April 6, 2026), which held that proceedings by private money lenders should be "nipped in the bud" unless a license is produced or it is shown the money was not advanced at interest

standards for summary judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules, which require the absence of triable issues for a decree to be sustained

The Court observed that the Supreme Court’s recent directives regarding money lending are not limited to specific regional acts but apply broadly to all civil or criminal proceedings initiated by private lenders

Since the Respondent’s plaint explicitly stated the money was lent with "agreed interest" and no license under the 1940 Act was produced, a statutory bar under Section 13 was potentially attracted

The Court reasoned that the learned Single Judge failed to determine whether the Respondent qualified as a "money lender" or whether the suit fell under the 1940 Act before passing the summary decree

Consequently, because these legal questions regarding the 1940 Act and the Commercial Courts Act require factual and legal determination, they constitute "triable issues of some substance"

The High Court determined that a summary decree is inappropriate when such substantial defenses are raised

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated January 15, 2025. The matter was remanded, with all contentions kept open for final adjudication during the trial