Supreme Court: No clarification required on Section 138 NI Act applicability to unlicensed money‑lending
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for clarification, holding that its earlier judgment does not extend to cases under the Maharashtra Money‑Lending Act.
The Supreme Court, bench of Justices Mishra and Anjaria, dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by Vyomesh Mahipatray Shah seeking clarification of its May 26 2026 judgment, holding that no clarification was required regarding the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to unlicensed money‑lending under the Maharashtra Money‑Lending (Regulation) Act.
The applicant argued that the ratio of the earlier decision should apply pan‑India to Section 138 cases involving unlicensed lenders in Maharashtra who advance loans against promissory notes. The issue before the Court was whether the May 26 judgment extended to matters governed by the Maharashtra Money‑Lending Act, which regulates money‑lending activities and defines the scope of enforceable debts.
The Court observed that the earlier judgment had not considered the provisions of the Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu Money‑Lending statutes, and therefore the question of their applicability remained for the appropriate forum. It highlighted Section 2(13)(j) of the Maharashtra Act, which excludes advances on negotiable instruments other than promissory notes, rendering such unlicensed advances illegal and outside the definition of a legally enforceable debt for Section 138 purposes. Consequently, the application for clarification was dismissed and the matter was disposed of.
Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: M/S Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd vs Lalitha (2026 INSC 1174).