The Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, defines the "business of money lending" as the activity of advancing loans, whether in cash or kind, and whether or not in connection with other businesses. For an activity to be considered the "business of money lending" under this Act, it must involve continuous and systematic lending with the purpose of earning income, rather than isolated or single transactions (!) (!) .

The Act makes it an offence to carry on the business of money lending without obtaining a valid license, with penalties including imprisonment and fines (!) . However, the key element is that the activity must be organized and habitual, not just a one-time or isolated transaction. Merely engaging in a single transaction, especially an old one, does not constitute the "business of money lending" under the Act (!) .

In the context of enforcement, the Court clarified that the presence of a single transaction, without evidence of a continuous or systematic course of lending, does not satisfy the criteria for the "business of money lending." Therefore, such isolated transactions cannot support the maintenance of a prosecution under the Act. The Act emphasizes the importance of ongoing, organized activity aimed at earning income through lending, rather than sporadic or incidental transactions (!) .

Additionally, the Court noted that the provisions of the Act, including the change to cognizable offences, do not automatically apply to transactions that are old or isolated, especially if civil litigation or other proceedings are pending or have been concluded. The initiation of criminal proceedings based solely on a single, old transaction without evidence of a habitual course of lending is not sustainable under the Act (!) (!) .

In summary, under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, the activity must involve ongoing, organized lending activities with the purpose of earning income to be considered "business of money lending." Single or isolated transactions, especially those from the distant past, do not meet this criterion and cannot, on their own, justify criminal prosecution under the Act.