Disposed¶5

Bhanudas Shelke v. The State of Mahaashtra

Bombay HC14 Feb 2025WP/12852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 18 Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act 2014 proceedings; District Deputy Registrar Pune Rural order set aside; Divisional Joint Registrar remand for fresh decision; subsequent purchasers denied opportunity of hearing; pendency of civil suits for declaration; whether money-lending proceedings barred by pending suits; writ interference declined; all points kept open; Sandeep V. Marne, J.; Bombay High Court; 4 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief; all points raised in the Petitions kept open ¶5

Bhanudas Shelke vs The State of Mahaashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; all points raised in the Petitions kept open

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the Divisional Joint Registrar's orders dated 28 June 2024, which remanded the Section 18 money-lending proceedings to the District Deputy Registrar with an opportunity of hearing to the subsequent purchasers. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Since an opportunity is being granted to the subsequent purchasers to put forth their case before the District Deputy Registrar, there is no valid reason for the Court to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

The subsequent purchasers' objection that pendency of their declaratory suits bars prosecution of the Section 18 proceedings is a point that can be raised before the District Deputy Registrar in the remanded proceedings.

¶3

Key takeaways

The orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar result in a situation where the original vendor, the original purchasers and the subsequent purchasers would all get sufficient opportunity of putting forth their defences before the District Deputy Registrar.ratio¶4
Considering the overall conspectus of the case, there is no warrant for interference in the impugned orders dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Five writ petitions (Nos. 12852, 12853, 12854, 12747 and 12742 of 2024) before the Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J., 4 March 2025) challenged the order dated 28 June 2024 of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, partly allowing the appeal, setting aside the District Deputy Registrar, Pune Rural's order dated 27 May 2024, and remanding the proceedings for decision afresh. Three petitions were filed by subsequent purchasers who were apparently not made parties to the proceedings under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and who had also instituted suits seeking declaration in respect of the same land. The Court held that, since the remand secured an opportunity of hearing to the original vendor, original purchasers and subsequent purchasers before the District Deputy Registrar, there was no valid reason or warrant for interference; the plea that pendency of the suits barred prosecution of the Section 18 proceedings could equally be raised before the District Deputy Registrar. Keeping all points raised open, the Petitions were disposed of.

¶1

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2025.03.06 15:39:20 +0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12852 OF 2024 Bhanudas Shelke ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12853 OF 2024 Pratibha Divekar ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12854 OF 2024 Shobhana Rupanwar ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12747 OF 2024 Balasaheb Uttamrao Shitole ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12742 OF 2024 Balasaheb Uttamrao Shitole ...Petitioner

¶5

Page No. 1 of 4 4 March 2025

¶6

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Ms. Namrata S. Bobade with Mr. Sagar Nagarkar for the Petitioner in WP/12852/2024, WP/12853/2024 and 12854/2024.

¶11

Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar for the Petitioner in WP/12742/2024 and WP/12747/2024 and for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP/12852/2024, WP/12853/2024 and 12854/2024.

¶12

Mr. Bhalchandra Shinde for Respondent No.4 in all Petitions. Mrs. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 4 March 2025.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

These Petitions challenge order dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, partly allowing the appeal and setting aside order dated 27 May 2024 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Pune Rural, Pune. Divisional Joint Registrar has remanded the proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar for being decided afresh.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.

¶17

Page No. 2 of 4 4 March 2025

¶18

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶19

So far as Writ Petition Nos.12852 of 2024, Writ Petition No.12853 of 2024 and 12854 of 2024 are concerned, same are filed by subsequent purchasers, who were apparently not made parties to the proceedings filed before the District Deputy Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar has accordingly directed grant of opportunity of hearing to them by the District Deputy Registrar. In my view, since an opportunity is being granted to the subsequent purchasers to put forth their case before the District Deputy Registrar, I do not see any valid reason for interfering in the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is also sought to be submitted by the subsequent purchasers that they have already instituted suits seeking declaration in respect of the very same land and that therefore in the light of pendency of the said suits, proceedings under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 cannot be prosecuted. In my view, this objection can also be raised before the District Deputy Registrar by the subsequent purchasers.

¶20

Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar results in a situation where original vendor as well as original purchasers as well as subsequent purchasers would get sufficient opportunity of putting forth their defences before the District Deputy Registrar. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference in the impugned orders dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶21

Page No. 3 of 4

¶22

4 March 2025

¶23

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶24