Negotiable instrument-backed advances may fall outside the money-lending bar where the transaction is part of a composite repayment arrangement.

An advance will not be treated as a "loan" barred by the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 where the transaction is part of a composite arrangement supported by negotiable instruments such as cheques and bills of exchange. Reading Section 2(9)(f) with Sections 2(17) and 10, the Court treated the instruments and written acknowledgments as integral to the repayment arrangement and held that the fact they were delivered after disbursement did not change the character of the transaction when the parties had agreed to the arrangement together. On that basis, the statutory bar was held inapplicable and the defence was described as belated and not bona fide.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was barred by the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 because the advances were alleged to be loans requiring a money-lending licence, and whether the transaction fell within the exclusion for advances made on the basis of negotiable instruments.

Analysis: The plaint and supporting documents showed that the claim was founded not merely on the advance of money, but also on dishonoured cheques, bills of exchange, and written acknowledgments undertaking repayment. The Court held that Section 2(9)(f) excludes from the definition of "loan" an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument other than a promissory note. Reading Section 2(9)(f) with Sections 2(17) and 10 harmoniously, the Court found that the transaction formed part of a composite arrangement under which the cheques and bills of exchange were integral to the loan arrangement. The fact that the instruments were handed over after disbursement did not alter the character of the transaction, since the parties had agreed upon the arrangement at the same time. The statutory bar was therefore inapplicable, and the defence was found to be belated and not bona fide.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946, and the appellant was not entitled to unconditional interference with the order granting only conditional leave to defend.

---