Important provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999

 3. Fraudulent default by Financial Establishment. Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity alongwith any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such Financial Establishment also shall be liable for a fine which may extend to one lac of rupees.

4. Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits.

Print Page

Should competent authority under rent law accept an application for leave to defend if it is not on the affidavit?

 Though the learned advocate for the petitioner, at first blush, would appear to be right in placing reliance upon Section 4 of the Limitation Act, the issues that need to be considered are, (a) whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the case of the petitioner and, (b) whether application, Exh.-8, seeking leave to defend, could be termed to be an application, in the eyes of law, in the absence of an affidavit or even a verification not affirmed before an oath administering authority. {Para 10}

11. In Prakash H. Jain v. Ms. Marie Fernandes1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the competent authority cannot be mistaken to be a ‘court’. The authority has a limited scope and a specific purpose under the Act and it cannot be deemed to be a ‘court’ for invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. A similar view was taken in Sunda Associates v. Ajit Kisanlal Agarwal2, wherein it was held that the authority cannot be deemed to be a ‘court’ and the delay of even one day, cannot be condoned. 

13. In Amitabh s/o. Ramsharan Nigam v. Amit Raghunandan Saran Sharma4, it has been held that the requirement under Section 43(4)(a) of the Rent Act is mandatory in nature. An application filed by the counsel, bearing his signature, seeking leave to defend, does not satisfy the strict requirement of the said provision. No affidavit was filed by the petitioner. Hence, refusing to grant leave to defend was proper, as the petitioner did not satisfy the strict requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the Rent Act.

14. In view of the above, it is obvious that Exh.-8, without the mandatory affidavit, would not be an application, which is within the strict prescription of law. In fact, the language used in Section 43(4)(a) requires an affidavit to be filed and not a mere application. As such, though Section 4 of the Limitation Act may have rescued the petitioner, the absence of an affidavit, which is mandatory, would render the said application non-existent in the eyes of law.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

Laxman Dadasaheb Jagtap  Vs Additional Commissioner and Another 

Writ Petition No. 579 of 2022

Decided on January 19, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 155

Print Page

Whether competent authority under Maharashtra rent control Act should conduct regular trial?

Comparison   of   provisions   of   Maharashtra   Rent   Act   and 
Delhi   Rent   Act   shows   that   provisions   like   sub­section   (3)   and 
explanation (b) for the purpose of section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent 
Act are not there in the Delhi Rent Act. Section 24(3) lays down that 
the   Competent   Authority   shall   not   entertain   any   claim   of   whatever 
nature  from  any  other   person  who   is not  licensee  according  to  the 
agreement of licence. Explanation (b) for the purpose of section 24 

provides that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive 
evidence   of   fact   stated   therein.     Such   provision   is   not   there   in   the 
Delhi Rent Act.  That apart, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 
the cases of Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Indrajeet Kaur 
(supra) will  apply to the eviction proceedings under sections 15 & 16 
that   are   to   be   tried   by   the   Court   specified   in   section   33   of   the 
Maharashtra Rent Act.  For deciding the proceedings under sections 15 
& 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, the regular trial is required to be 

conducted and explanation (b) to section 24 and provisions of Chapter 
VIII are not applicable to such proceedings.   The proceedings under 
Chapter VIII are to be tried by the  Competent Authority keeping in 
mind provisions of section 24 and Chapter VIII viz. sections 39, 41 to 
44 and 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Act and not by the Court specified 
by section 33.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3886 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2184 OF 2010

AMI Merchandising Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others


CORAM :   R.G.KETKAR, J.
                
  PRONOUNCED ON :   03rd April,  2014

Citation;2014(4) ALLMR 643 Bom

Print Page

Whether Competent authority can stay proceeding before him on ground of pendency of civil suit?

Thus, the special provision has been made under the said Act for evicting the licensees of premises given on licence for residence. A special procedure laid down under Chapter VIII governs the application made under Section 24 of the said Act. The said Act contemplates a summary disposal of the applications. By the very nature of the proceedings as reflected from the aforesaid statutory provisions, the jurisdiction of Competent Authority is very limited. It can decide a dispute between a landlord (lincesor) and the licensee. It is obvious that considering the summary nature of the proceedings, issue of title to the disputed premises can never be decided in such proceedings. The Sub-section (1) of Section 24 starts with non obstante clause. Moreover Section 39 of the said Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter VIII. Therefore, pendency of a suit governed by Section 33 of the said Act or a suit on title cannot prevent the Competent Authority from deciding an application for eviction. There is no statutory power vesting the Competent Authority to stay the proceedings of the application under Section 24 of the said Act on the ground of pendency of a civil suit relating to the property.

Bombay High Court

Surendra B. Agarwal & Anr vs Aml Merchandising Pvt Ltd on 11 September, 2009

Bench: A.S. Oka

Citation: 2010(5)BomCR331,2010(1)MHLJ223 Bom

Print Page