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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.