Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1950 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTDishonour of Cheque - Defendants contend that by reason of the bar under Section 13 of the Maharashtra MoneyLending (Regulation) Act, 2014, no decree can be passed in the suit - whether the suit relates to any loan or part thereof lent by a money lender? - HELD THAT:- Merely because while narrating the facts of the case the grant of loan by the Plaintiff to the Defendants finds a mention, merely as a historical narration, it cannot be said that the suit is for recovery of loan. The moment payment is made by a cheque or another negotiable instrument of a loan, the liability under the loan is substituted by the liability to honour the cheque or the negotiable instrument, as the case may be. In fact, in a sense, the original liability to pay the loan is discharged by means of execution of the negotiable instrument. If this negotiable instrument is not honoured upon presentation for payment, a distinct and new liability arises under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is no answer then to a suit filed on such negotiable instrument that its holder is a money lender and that he did not hold a valid licence when he lent the original sum. The original loan lent merely forms part of a consideration for the negotiable instrument. There is nothing in law which prevents such consideration coming from a money lender, who does not hold a valid money lending licence. The consideration cannot be termed as an invalid consideration. Section 30 of the Act merely provides for a bar in passing a decree in favour of a money lender in a suit which relates to money lent and advanced and does not render the loan itself to be either illegal or invalid. Accordingly, there is no merit in this defence offered to the summons for judgment. In the premises, on the facts of the case, this court would be perfectly justified in making the summons for judgment absolute by passing a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. However, with a view to give one chance, only by way of mercy, to the Defendants to try and make out a case at the trial of the suit, this court is of the view that the Defendants may be allowed to defend the suit but on a condition of deposit of the entire principal amount of the dishonoured cheque into this court. Defendant No. 1 is granted leave to defend the suit on and subject to the condition of deposit in this court of a sum of Rs. 1,86,78,313/within a period of eight weeks from today - The notice of motion is accordingly dismissed.
|