Dishonoured cheque suits and pre-institution mediation are treated as procedural and pleading issues, not automatic bars to suit.

A suit based on dishonoured cheques was treated as outside the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 where the claim rested on the cheques themselves and the advance by cheque fell within the statutory exclusion for that mode of payment. The commentary also treats pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as a procedural safeguard capable of waiver and substantial compliance, rather than an absolute bar to institution. On the pleadings, alleged non-compliance with Order VII Rule 2A was not shown to justify rejection where the basis for principal and interest was disclosed through the cheque particulars and claim calculation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit on dishonoured cheques was barred by the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014; (ii) whether non-compliance with section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 barred institution of the suit; (iii) whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for alleged non-compliance with Order VII Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the suit on dishonoured cheques was barred by the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.

Analysis: The suit was founded on dishonoured cheques and not on enforcement of the antecedent loan transaction. The advance by cheque fell within the statutory exclusion in section 2(13)(j), and the bar under section 13(1) applies only where a decree is sought by a money-lender in respect of a loan advanced in the course of the business of money-lending. The defendant also failed to establish that the plaintiff was engaged in systematic, regular, repetitive and continuous money-lending activity.

Conclusion: The bar under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 did not apply; this objection failed against the defendant.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 barred institution of the suit.

Analysis: Section 12A was treated as a procedural requirement intended to promote pre-institution settlement, not as an absolute jurisdictional embargo. The requirement was held capable of being waived on the facts, and the objection had not been taken at the earliest opportunity in the pleadings. The parties had also attempted settlement after institution, showing substantial compliance with the object of the provision. The Court relied on parity with the waiver principle applicable to notice requirements under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be dismissed for want of pre-institution mediation; this objection failed against the defendant.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for alleged non-compliance with Order VII Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaint and supporting claim were based on specific dishonoured cheques, including one towards principal and one towards interest. The mode of calculation of interest was sufficiently disclosed from the particulars of claim, and the pleaded basis of the monetary claim was not shown to be defective in a manner warranting rejection.

Conclusion: The objection based on Order VII Rule 2A failed against the defendant.

Final Conclusion: The defendant's legal defences were rejected, but the plaintiff was granted only conditional leave to proceed on deposit of the claimed amount, so the matter was not finally decreed at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit founded on dishonoured cheques is not barred by the money-lending legislation merely because the underlying transaction involved an advance, and pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a procedural safeguard capable of substantial compliance and waiver on the facts of the case.

---