Prashant S/O. Gajanan Sujdekar Vs Manoj S/O Ramchandra Mandale and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Prashant S/O. Gajanan Sujdekar Vs Manoj S/O Ramchandra Mandale and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of, the grievance of the petitioner not surviving in view of the respondents' statement that the Section 18(3) proceedings have been resumed and heard; respondent no.3 clarified to decide the proceedings without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's challenge to the order dated 13-11-2023 passed by respondent no.5 (staying the Section 18(3) proceedings before respondent no.3 during the pendency of the civil suit) survives, in light of the respondents' affidavit in reply dated 07-08-2025 stating that the proceedings have been resumed and the hearing conducted on 06-08-2025.

Court's answer

In view of the affidavit in reply dated 07-08-2025 filed by respondent nos.3, 4 and 5, whereby the Section 18(3) proceedings were resumed and the hearing was conducted on 06-08-2025, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the statement made by the respondents, no further orders are required to be passed.

Key takeaways

It is clarified that respondent no.3 shall decide the proceedings without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.4579/2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.), decided 11-09-2025: The petitioner challenged an order dated 13-11-2023 passed by respondent no.5 staying the proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 pending before respondent no.3 in view of the pendency of a civil suit. By an affidavit in reply dated 07-08-2025, respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 stated that, in accordance with the position of law laid down in Madhav Gangadahr Bodke v Balaji Baliram Chandpur and others (Writ Petition No.3165/2022), the Section 18(3) proceedings had been resumed and the hearing conducted on 06-08-2025. Holding that the petitioner's grievance therefore did not survive, and that no further orders were required, the Court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that respondent no.3 shall decide the proceedings without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

wp 4579.24.odt

1

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

Writ Petition No.4579/2024 Prashant V Manoj and others

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

Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Narale, AGP for resp. nos.3, 4 and 5.
Mr. H.R. GAdhia, advocate for reps. nos.1 and 2.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 11-09-2025.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned Counsel for the respondents.

2.The petitioner has challenged order dated 13-11-2023
passed by respondent no.5, thereby staying the proceedings pending
before respondent no.3 in view of pendency of the civil suit.

3.In view of the affidavit in reply dated 07-08-2025 filed
by respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 stating therein that in accordance with
the position of law as laid down in the matter of Madhav
Gangadahr Bodke V Balaji Baliram Chandpur and others in Writ
Petition No.3165/2022, which is reproduced in the reply, the
proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, is resumed and the hearing was
also conducted on 06-08-2025. In view of this, the grievance of the
petitioner does not survive.

4.In view of the statement made by the respondents, no
further orders are required to be passed.

2 wp 4579.24.odt

5. It is clarified that respondent no.3 shall decide the proceedings without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

6. Writ Petition is disposed of.

 (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

Deshmukh