Back
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Madhav Gangadhar Bodke – Appellant
Versus
Balaji Baliram Chandapur – Respondent
Yes, the District Deputy Registrar has the power to appoint a commission under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [4000708560009][4000708560010][4000708560012][4000708560014]
Section 15 of the Act explicitly grants the District Registrar (including the District Deputy Registrar for proceedings under Sections 14 and 18) powers analogous to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These include: (a) enforcing attendance of any person and examining on oath; (b) compelling production of documents and material objects; and (c) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [4000708560009][4000708560012][4000708560014]
This power extends to referring disputed documents, such as handwriting samples, to an expert for verification, as it falls within the scope of evaluating documentary evidence to determine the nature of a money-lending transaction. Rule 17(9) and (10) of the Money Lending Regulation Rules, 2014, further supports the authority's ability to inspect documents and examine persons to ascertain the real nature of the transaction. [4000708560010][4000708560012][4000708560014]
The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of these provisions to achieve the benevolent object of the social legislation, rejecting narrow interpretations that would render the authority powerless in disputed evidence matters. The order directing referral to a handwriting expert was upheld as within jurisdiction, quashing the revisional authority's contrary finding. [4000708560012][4000708560013][4000708560014] (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J. - The petitioner impugns the order dated 31.1.2022 passed by the Registrar for Money Lenders/Special Registrar (Coopeartive Societies), Maharashtra State/respondent No.4., whereby the respondent No.4 has quashed and set aside the order dated 18.2.2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, directing to refer the handwriting of respondent No.1 (alleged money lender) for opinion of expert.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint resorting to the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Money Lending Act' for sake of brevity) before the respondent No.2 contending that the respondent No.1 has indulged in illegal money lending transactions and he got executed sale deed dated 27.1.2016 by way of security against the loan of Rs. 5,20,000/-. The petitioner alleges that despite return of the aforesaid loan amount by him along with exorbitant interest, the respondent No1. refused to return the land to the him. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is in the practice of getting executed illegal sale deeds under garb of security of loan advanced to needy agriculturi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the expansive powers of the authorities under the Money Lending Act, akin to those of a civil court, and the importance of liberal interpretation o....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting the jurisdiction and decisions of the Civil Court in matters related to the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, and criticizes the i....
Civil Court decree upholding sale-deed as absolute sale binds Money Lending Act authorities via res judicata; transaction not money-lending without proven interest, essential for 'loan' definition.
The jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act is strictly limited to cases where there is clear evidence of illegal money lending, which must be established in t....
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did someth....
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave derelictio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
