Recently, in a significant procedural rebuke concerning cheque dishonour litigation and repeated attempts to reopen concluded criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court stepped in to examine a plea accusing a lender of operating without a licence in Tamil Nadu.
The petition, filed by a woman already convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought sweeping directions against alleged unlicensed money-lending practices and stronger safeguards for borrowers. However, the Bench closely scrutinised whether constitutional writ jurisdiction could be used to indirectly challenge a criminal conviction that had already travelled through every appellate stage.
The controversy began when the Petitioner approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that the lender involved in the cheque transaction was an unlicensed money-lender and that the underlying transaction itself was unenforceable. Counsel for the petitioner urged the Court to frame guidelines in cases involving alleged loan defaults tied to unlicensed lending and to ensure strict implementation of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957.
But the factual backdrop carried significant baggage, the Petitioner had already been convicted by the Trial Court in 2017, sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, and directed to pay ₹18 lakh compensation with interest. The conviction was later upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court, while even the Top Court had earlier granted limited relief by modifying the interest component after she deposited the cheque amount.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta came down heavily on the fresh writ petition, calling it a deliberate attempt to reopen issues that had already attained finality. The Court said the petitioner’s move was “nothing but a manifest abuse of the process of law” and remarked that “the conduct of the Petitioner reflects a calculated attempt to unsettle concluded findings and to evade the legal consequences of a conviction that has attained finality.” The Court further held that a litigant who had already exhausted the entire hierarchy of remedies could not be permitted to “reagitate issues, whether directly or indirectly, under the guise of a writ petition.”
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh, to be deposited with the Court Registry for transmission to the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
Case Title: S. Gayathiri Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No.479 of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Karan Bharihoke, Adv. Devanshu Yadav, AOR Sahil Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Gopal Verma, Adv. Umang Verma,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
