##PAGE1##

NON-REPORTABLE

2026 INSC 1174 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.3002 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2849 OF 2026 M/S MANSI FINANCE (CHENNAI) LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS M. LALITHA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

IN THE MATTER OF:

VYOMESH MAHIPATRAY SHAH …APPLICANT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. By way of present Miscellaneous Application, the applicant – Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah seeks clarification of the judgment dated 26.05.2026 rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2849 of 2026 (M/s. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. vs. M. Lalitha & Others). It is pleaded that the said judgment does not apply in case of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Digitally signed by initiated by unlicensed money lenders in the State of Maharashtra advancing money at interest against promissory note, whether or not accompanied by cheque or any other security, in view of the threshold bar on enforceability of a loan, inter alia, against promissory note which is not excluded from the definition of ‘loan’ in Section 2(13)(j) of Signature Not Verified SACHIN Date: 2026.10.29

16:04:27 IST Reason:

1 For short, ‘the NI Act’

the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, For short, ‘the Maharashtra Act’, and shall continue to be governed by the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by this Court in MA No.

1176/2026 in SLP (Crl.) No.5485/2024.

2. Heard the learned senior counsels appearing for the parties and perused the papers.

3. The judgment dated 26.05.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.2849 of 2026 has dealt with the proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act. The appellant/complainant therein extended loans to the accused persons for which promissory notes were executed by the accused persons in favour of the appellant/complainant therein. For repayment of said loan, cheques were issued by the accused persons which came to be dishonoured giving rise to the subject proceedings. The accused persons approached the High Court seeking quashment of the complaint on the ground inter alia that they were neither signatories to the cheque nor in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Society and that the complaint lacked the necessary foundational averments to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the NI Act. The High Court allowed the plea and quashed the proceedings. However, this Court partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.2849 of 2026 and restored the proceedings against three out of four accused persons who had approached the High Court.

4. The present applicant - Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah seeks clarification of our judgment dated 26.05.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.2849 of 2026 on the plea that the loans advanced through a promissory note in the State of Tamil

Nadu is dealt under the Tamil Nadu Money-lenders Act, 1957, For short, ‘the Tamil Nadu Act’ which excludes the advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument. Thus, a debt secured by a negotiable instrument, including against a promissory note, remains a legally enforceable debt under the Tamil Nadu Act. However, the applicant’s case pending in the State of Maharashtra is governed by the Maharashtra Act which does not exclude an advance at interest made against a promissory note. Therefore, in Maharashtra, advance at interest against a promissory note, even when accompanied by cheques, being a loan, is hit by the prohibition on unlicensed money lending under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act. Since the judgment dated 26.05.2026 being premised on advance of loan on promissory notes, the same may be treated as having pan- India application. Therefore, clarification of the judgment dated 26.05.2026 is necessary.

5. Objecting to the prayer made by the applicant - Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah in this Miscellaneous Application, it is argued on behalf of Ashok Commercial Enterprises, intervenor, that the Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable inasmuch as the judgment dated 26.05.2026