9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Petition for directing respondent to decide application, lodge prosecution u/s 35-A and 35-B of Bombay Money Lenders' Act, stay arbitration proceedings.
Decision on Petition for Directing Respondent to Decide Application: The petitioner sought direction for respondent No.1 to decide the application at Annexure-D forthwith regarding the respondent's license status under the Bombay Money Lenders' Act. The petitioner alleged non-production and non-obtaining of license by the respondent, which constitutes an offense u/s 35-A and 35-B of the Act. The High Court directed respondent No.1 to consider the application within four weeks, emphasizing that this decision would address the petitioner's grievance effectively. Decision on Lodging Prosecution u/s 35-A and 35-B of Bombay Money Lenders' Act: The petitioner requested prosecution against respondent No.1 for the alleged offense of not having the required license u/s 35-A and 35-B of the Bombay Money Lenders' Act. Despite the petitioner's claims and reliable sources indicating the lack of a license, no action had been taken by the authorities. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the matter but directed respondent No.1 to decide the pending application first, which would potentially lead to addressing the petitioner's concerns. Decision on Staying Arbitration Proceedings: The case stemmed from a loan transaction where disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.3, leading to arbitration proceedings. During the arbitration process, certain orders were passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, affecting the petitioner's rights over certain properties. The High Court did not intervene in the arbitration proceedings but emphasized the importance of resolving the pending application related to the respondent's license status before proceeding further. The Court's focus was on ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioner's concerns before any further actions were taken in the arbitration process.
|
