JITENDRA KAWARILAL KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent the learned Advocates for the rival parties.

(2.) The present petition arises out of order passed under Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Money Lending Act"). The Respondent No. 5 had filed proceedings under Sec. 18(2) of the Money Lending Act against the present petitioner, inter alia alleging that the petitioner is a money-lender, who is engaged in money lending business, although he does not have licence of money lending under the said Act. It is alleged that the father of petitioner is his agent. The Respondent No. 5 stated that he was in need of money of Rs.20,000.00 as loan for educational purpose of his son and therefore, he had approached the father of petitioner and obtained loan of Rs.20,000.00 from the petitioner. He states that the loan was agreed to be repaid with interest @ 10% per month. He has stated that the petitioner had imposed condition for execution of sale-deed/earnest-note with respect to agricultural land of respondent No. 5 towards security of loan amount. He has stated that in such circumstances he was compelled to execute a nominal sale-deed dtd. 21/4/2003 in favour of the petitioner. The Respondent No. 5 contended that although he has refunded the amount along with interest, the petitioner did not return the sale-deed to him and rather tried to get the suit property mutated in his name.

(3.) On the aforesaid complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 5, the respondents-authorities conducted enquiry and arrived at conclusion that the petitioner had entered into 35 transactions of money lending under the guise of sale transaction from the year 2003 to 2004. Based on the aforesaid report and other evidence on record, the Respondent No. 2 passed Order dtd. 2/11/2018, holding that petitioner was engaged in business of money lending without holding appropriate licence and that the sale transaction in question was a money lending transaction. The Respondent No. 2 accordingly declared the sale-deed dtd. 21/4/2003 to be illegal and passed an order for return of the said immovable property to Respondent No. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 3, which was partly allowed vide Order dtd. 29/6/2020. The Order dtd. 2/11/2018, passed by the respondent No.2 was quashed and set aside and the proceeding was remanded to the Respondent No. 2 for deciding the same afresh by granting opportunity to both sides to lead evidence, conduct cross-examination of witnesses and advance arguments in the matter. After the remand, the Respondent No. 2 once again passed order dtd. 23/6/2022, confirming the earlier Order dtd. 2/11/2018, thereby declaring the sale-deed dtd. 21/4/2003 as illegal and directing the petitioner to return the property to the Respondent No. 5. Appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Respondent No. 3 vide Order dtd. 9/11/2022. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision before the Respondent No. 4, which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 31/5/2024 on the ground that the same was not maintainable.