Rohan Machindra Choure And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Held

The Court held that the Petitioners have approached the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 74/2025 and have also filed a complaint (No. 1039/2025) under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The Court noted that Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, provides for an appeal to the Divisional Registrar against an order or decision of the District Registrar. Since efficacious alternate remedies are available, including the statutory appeal and the civil suit, the Court found no merit in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court distinguished the present case from *Nitin Nandkumar Patil* where an appeal was preferred and a stay application was pending. Regarding *Padma Vitthalrao Dhok*, the Court observed that the Single Judge did not consider Section 18(4) of the Act. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The Petitioners, Rohan Machindra Choure & others, sought interim protection from the High Court. They alleged that a bank disbursed a loan of Rs. 1.80 Crores (plus GST on machinery) for a factory, but failed to disburse the full sanctioned amount of Rs. 3 Crores, preventing them from starting operations. The bank initiated recovery proceedings and put the mortgaged property for auction. A money lender allegedly paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to stop an auction. Subsequently, the Petitioners mortgaged their property again to another bank for Rs. 2,90,00,000/-, which was deposited into their loan account. The Petitioners filed a complaint (No. 1039/2025) before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, seeking interim protection, but were informed that no such provision existed. They also filed a Civil Suit (RCS No. 74/2025).

Key Issues

1. Whether the competent authority under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, has the power to grant interim protection to a debtor, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act? 2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when efficacious alternative remedies, including a civil suit and a statutory appeal, are available to the Petitioners? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioners argued that the competent authority wrongly stated it had no jurisdiction to grant interim protection, relying on Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. They cited precedents like *Nitin Nandkumar Patil & another vs. State of Maharashtra* and *Padma Vitthalrao Dhok vs. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati*, where interim protection or status quo was granted. They contended that the authority's communication was erroneous. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the Revenue or State. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the availability of alternative remedies was a key consideration.