SANDIP PREMSINGH RAJPUT JAMADAR vs THE REGISTRAR OF MONEY LENDING DHULE AND ANR — WP/3731/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030134662026
Filing Number
WP/10083/2026
Filing Date
06-04-2026
Registration No
WP/3731/2026
Registration Date
07-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANDIP PREMSINGH RAJPUT JAMADAR
Adv. PATIL VIJAY BHALERAO
Respondent(s)
THE REGISTRAR OF MONEY LENDING DHULE AND ANR
Adv. UJWAL S PATIL FOR R.NO. 2 1123
SMT. SARALABAI AJITSINGH RAJPUT
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 06-05-2026 | |
| 16-04-2026 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/3731/2026 The Aurangabad High Court partly allowed petitioner Sandip Rajput's writ petitions challenging "no cross order" passed in a money-lending dispute under Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The court quashed orders dated 04.03.2026 and 23.03.2026, finding that the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent's power-of-attorney witness was improperly denied. The court held that while power-of-attorney holder evidence is admissible when the witness has personal knowledge of the transaction, the petitioner cannot be prevented from cross-examination. The proceeding was remanded for cross-examination stage, with directions to complete the case within six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/3731/2026 The Aurangabad High Court partly allowed petitioner Sandip Rajput's writ petitions challenging "no cross order" passed in a money-lending dispute under Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The court quashed orders dated 04.03.2026 and 23.03.2026, finding that the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent's power-of-attorney witness was improperly denied. The court held that while power-of-attorney holder evidence is admissible when the witness has personal knowledge of the transaction, the petitioner cannot be prevented from cross-examination. The proceeding was remanded for cross-examination stage, with directions to complete the case within six months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts