2026:BHC-OS:1601 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY rrpillai ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 27175 OF 2021 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 1532 OF 2018 Hubtown Limited … Applicant In the matter between … Plaintiff Ashok Commercial Enterprises Vs.

Hubtown Limited … Defendant Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prateek Sakseria, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Yash Dhruva, Ms.

Niyati Mechant, Mr. Harsh Sheth i/b MDP Legal for the Applicant in IA(L)/27175/2021/Defendant.

Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Gaurav Mehta, Mr. Chaitanya D. Mehta, Ms. Sonali Aggarwal i/b M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Plaintiff. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

RESERVED ON : 16th OCTOBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 21st JANUARY 2026 JUDGMENT:

BASIC FACTS:

1. This application is filed by the defendant under Order VII Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’) for the rejection RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI

2026.01.21 +0530 of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred in view of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (‘the said Act’). The suit is filed for recovery of money against the defendant based on the dishonoured cheques issued by the defendant and promissory notes executed by the defendant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

2. The submissions made by learned senior counsel for the defendant are summarised as under:

a) As per the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of builder finance and claims to have advanced loans to the defendant from 2011-2012 at interest rates up to 36% per annum. The plaintiff has pleaded that a loan was granted to the defendant in 2011-2012 for a sum of approximately Rs. 48 Crores, which was subsequently increased to approximately Rs. 510 Crores. The defendant unilaterally issued post-dated cheques for repayment of the loan and executed demand promissory notes from time to time. The cheques, when presented, were dishonoured for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the suit is filed on the basis of dishonoured cheques and on the defendant's letter admitting acceptance of the loan and liability to repay.

b) The plaintiff has not pleaded that it possesses a mandatory license as required under the said Act. Thus, the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed in the suit that it does not possess a mandatory license. It is only by clever drafting that the factual aspect regarding the money- lending license is suppressed in the plaint. Thus, on a meaningful reading of the pleadings in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of money lending without a licence. The plaintiff has allegedly granted loans and advanced interest funds to the defendant at different rates. Accordingly, the plaintiff contends that the defendant has issued demand promissory notes for repayment of the alleged loans. However, the plaintiff has wrongly captioned the notes as bills of exchange.

c) Under Section 13 of the said Act, there is a bar to pass a decree in favour of a money-lender when the money- lender does not hold a valid licence. Thus, Section 13 of the said Act bars a Court from passing a decree in a suit filed by an unregistered money-lender. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Learned senior counsel for the defendant relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Fauzan Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra¹, and the Apex Court’s decision in the case of RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar². Learned senior counsel for the defendant, therefore, submits that the suit is an abuse of judicial process where the plaintiff has, by clever drafting, espoused a cause of action which is barred by Section 13 of the said Act.

d) The exclusion under Section 2(13)(j) would not assist the plaintiff in the facts of the present case. According to the learned senior counsel for the defendant, as per the sche