Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.
Madhav Gangadhar Bodke – Appellant
Versus
Balaji Baliram Chandapur & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 3165 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Money Lending Act - Jurisdiction of Authorities - Section 18(2) - [Money Lending Act] - [Section 15, Rule 17 of Money Lending Rules 2014] - The court discussed the powers of the authorities under the Money Lending Act and Rules, emphasizing their ability to enforce attendance, examine on oath, compel production of documents, and issue commissions for examination of witnesses. The court highlighted the importance of liberal interpretation of provisions to serve the object of social legislation and concluded that the reasoning adopted by the revisional authority was erroneous.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 18(2) of the Money Lending Act, alleging illegal money lending transactions by the respondent. The respondent refused to return land despite repayment of the loan amount, leading to a dispute. The petitioner sought to refer the respondent's handwriting to an expert for verification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities under the Money Lending Act have powers analogous to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including enforcing attendance, examining on oath, compelling production of documents, and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of liberal interpretation of provisions to serve the object of social legislation.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction and powers of the authorities under the Money Lending Act and Rules, particularly regarding the referral of handwriting to an expert for verification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities under the Money Lending Act have powers analogous to a civil court and emphasized the importance of liberal interpretation of provisions to serve the object of social legislation. The court concluded that the reasoning adopted by the revisional authority was erroneous.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Registrar General in the revision application was quashed and set aside. The order passed by the District Deputy Registrar was restored.
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 agriculturists.
3. The cognizance of the complaint of the petitioner has been taken by the respondent No.2. The notice of the proceeding was given to the respondent No.1. The petitioner has placed on record various receipts issued by the respondent No.1 in his handwriting. The petitioner moved an application with a request that the aforesaid handwriting of the respondent no.1 be sent to the expert so as to verify the genuineness of the handwriting of the respondent No.1. In pursuance of the said application, the respondent No.1 passed order dated 18.2.2021 and referred the document containing handwriting of the respondent No.1 to the handwriting expert. The petitioner was called upon to deposit the requisite expenses. The petitioner complied with the said requirement and deposited the amount of Rs. 32,450/- in the bank account of the expert. The respondent No.1 was called upon to provide his handwriting samples. However, he refused to cooperate. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 23rd July, 2021, directed the respondent No.1 to remain present before the handwriting expert and provide sample of handwriting. Meanwhile, the respondent No.1 filed an application for recalling of the order passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner or sending the handwriting to the expert for opinion. The respondent NO.2 vide his order dated 18.2.2021 rejected said application.
4. The respondent No.1 approached the respondent No.4/Registrar of Money Lenders, invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Act vide Revision Application No. 43 of 2021. The respondent No.4, after hearing the parties allowed the revision application vide order dated 31.1.2022 holding that the respondent No.2 do not possess the power analogous Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to call the opinion of expert or appoint a commission.
5. Mr. Anand V. Indrale Patil learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has placed on record voluminous evidence to justify his complaint before the respondent No.2 showing indulgence of respondent No.1 in illegal money lending business and grabbing the properties of the poor agriculturists by way of security against the loan. He would submit that the petitioner executed sale deed dated 27.1.2016 towards the security of loan amount of Rs.5,25,000/-. The loan amount is already repaid to respondent no.1 however, the respondent No.1 has refused to return land to the petitioner by executing the sale deed. The petitioner possesses handwritten receipts of respondent No. 1 depicting repayment of the amount against loan. The application was moved before the respondent No.2 for referring the handwritten receipts to the handwriting expert. The respondent No.2 vide his order dated 18
AI
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
