https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308276 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. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:13:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308276 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308276