Dismissed

Shobhabai Ranvir Paikrao v. the Registrar General of Money Lending and Special Registrar and Others

Bombay HC5 Aug 2024WP/8202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging remand order in a money lending inquiry under the Maharashtra Money-Lending Act was dismissed. The court confirmed the remand was proper to afford cross-examination opportunity and directed the respondent to conclude proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction to respondent to conclude proceedings within six months.

Shobhabai Ranvir Paikrao Vs the Registrar General of Money… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

26-wp-8202-2024.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2024:BHC-AUG:17099

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8202 OF 2024

¶6

SHOBHABAI RANVIR PAIKRAO VERSUS

¶7

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF MONEY LENDING AND SPECIAL REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 05^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

The present writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.76/2019 and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.28/2018.

¶12

Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that order directing remand of the matter has been passed in proceeding under Section 18(2) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. He would submit that respondents herein never asked for permission to cross-examine the witnesses while enquiry was conducted by Assistant Registrar and under impugned order the matter is remanded back only with observation that respondents were not permitted to cross-examine witnesses. He would submit that approach of respondent no.1 is inconsistent with the record.

¶13

Having considered submissions advanced, it appears that respondents have made request seeking permission for crossexamination before the Appellate Authority. To find out nature of

¶14

26-wp-8202-2024.odt

¶15

(2)

¶16

transaction, it would be appropriate that full opportunity is given to the parties to lead evidence and even cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements are recorded during the course of enquiry. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found in impugned order directing rsemand with a view to affort an opportunity in favour of respondent to cross-examine witnesses relied during the course of enquiry by Assistant Registrar.

¶17

Mr. Suryawanshi points out that the petitioner is litigating for his right since 2014. The report of enquiry clearly depicts that it is a case of money lending transaction. He would submit that in such matter, the expeditious hearing and disposal of matter is required. There is substance in the contentions of Mr. Suryawanshi. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition stands dismissed with direction to respondent no.3 to conclude proceeding within a period of six months from the date of this order. The parties to cooperate for early disposal.

¶18

Writ Petition stands dismissed with aforesaid directions.

¶19

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶20

Devendra/August-2024

Shobhabai Ranvir Paikrao v. the Registrar General of Money Lending and Special Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhabai Ranvir Paikrao v. the Registrar General of Money Lending and Special Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javed Abdul Gafoor Tambatkar and Others Vs Shivshankar Lachamandas Rathod and Others

Ramesh Bhaurao Navpute Thr Lrs Mandabai Ramesh Navpute and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Ramesh Bhaurao Navpute Thr Lrs Mandabai Ramesh Navpute and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Ganesh Kailas Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balu Shrimant Todekar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Kiran Damodhar More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Rural Development and Others