Dishonoured cheque liability can proceed independently of an underlying loan, while pre-judgment attachment requires concrete risk of asset dissipation.

A suit on a dishonoured cheque was treated as based on the drawer's independent statutory liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, not as a claim for recovery of the underlying loan. On that basis, the bar under Section 13 of the Maharashtra MoneyLending (Regulation) Act, 2014 did not apply merely because the cheque related to a loan advanced without a money-lending licence, and the licence-based defence failed. The request for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was also rejected because the summons-for-judgment order was conditional and there was no material showing any concrete risk of dissipation of assets to defeat a decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bar under Section 13 of the Maharashtra MoneyLending (Regulation) Act, 2014 prevented a decree in a suit based on a dishonoured cheque issued in respect of an underlying loan transaction; (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the bar under Section 13 of the Maharashtra MoneyLending (Regulation) Act, 2014 prevented a decree in a suit based on a dishonoured cheque issued in respect of an underlying loan transaction.

Analysis: The suit was held to be founded not on recovery of the original loan, but on the independent liability of the drawer under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from dishonour of the cheque. The earlier loan was treated only as the consideration for issuance of the cheque. The statutory bar against a decree in a suit relating to money lent by an unlicensed money lender was held inapplicable because the cause of action was the dishonoured negotiable instrument and not recovery of the loan itself.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 13 did not defeat the suit on the dishonoured cheque, and the defence based on absence of a money-lending licence was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: In view of the conditional order made in the summons for judgment proceedings and the absence of material showing any concrete likelihood of the defendants defeating a decree by disposing of property, the statutory requirements for attachment before judgment were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The request for attachment before judgment was refused.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff succeeded only to the extent of obtaining a conditional defence order, while the broader reliefs sought for an immediate decree and pre-judgment attachment were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit on a dishonoured cheque rests on the independent statutory liability of the drawer under the Negotiable Instruments Act and is not barred merely because the underlying advance was a loan made by a person said to be carrying on money lending without a licence.

---