Pradip S/O Murlidhar Bobade and Another vs the Registrar General of Money Lending Pune and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pradip S/O Murlidhar Bobade and Another vs the Registrar General of Money Lending Pune and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file revision under Section 9 of the Act within six weeks; interim order to continue for a period of six weeks; time spent in prosecuting the writ petition to be taken into consideration by the Authority while considering application for condonation of delay; all points kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 is empowered/bound under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014 to entertain the petitioner's revision.

Court's answer

Under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014, respondent No.1 is bound to decide the revision.

Ratio / Principle

Both petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file revision under Section 9 of the Act within six weeks; interim order to continue for six weeks; time spent prosecuting the writ petition shall be considered by the Authority while considering condonation of delay; all points kept open.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No.3906 of 2024 with Writ Petition No.3907 of 2024 [neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:11179]; Shri Pradip S/o. Murlidhar Bobare and Another v. The Registrar General of Money Lending Pune and Others; decided 10.10.2025 by Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J. The petitions challenged an order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014. A revision preferred under Section 9 before respondent No.1 was refused after the Court's Coordinate Bench had answered in the negative the question whether respondent No.1 is empowered under Section 9 to entertain the revision. That order was subsequently recalled, and it is now held that under Section 9 of the Act respondent No.1 is bound to decide the revision. Accordingly, both petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file revision under Section 9 within six weeks, the interim order continuing for six weeks, the time spent prosecuting the writ petition to be taken into consideration by the Authority while considering condonation of delay, and all points kept open.

2025:BHC-NAG:11179

1 35-WP-3906-2024 CORRECTED.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.3906 OF 2024

Shri Pradip S/o. Murlidhar Bobare and Another Vs.

The Registrar General of Money Lending Pune and Others

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3907 OF 2024

Shri Pradip S/o. Murlidhar Bobare and Another Vs.

The Registrar General of Money Lending Pune and Others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. Purushottam Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions. Mr. V.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No.4.

CORAM: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J . DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitions are filed against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014, against which the petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 9 before the respondent No.1. Meanwhile, in the proceeding filed before this Court at its Coordinate Bench, an issue was raised that whether the respondent No.1 is empowered under Section 9 to entertain the revision, which was answered in negative and therefore, respondent No.1 refused to entertain the revision filed by the petitioner.

2 35-WP-3906-2024 CORRECTED.odt

Corrected as per Court’s order dated 16.10.2025.

Subsequently, the order of this Court was recalled. Now, it is held by this Court that under Section 9 of the Act, the respondent No.1 is bound to decide the revision. In view of that, both these petitions are disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner to file revision under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioners to file a revision within a period of six weeks. Interim order to continue for a period of six weeks. The time spent in prosecuting the writ petition shall be taken into consideration by the Authority while considering application for condonation of delay. All points are kept open.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.)

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁