Facts: The respondent No.5 alleged that he obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner at an interest rate of 10% per month and was compelled to execute a nominal sale-deed in 2003 as security. Despite repaying the loan, the petitioner allegedly refused to return the property. The District Deputy Registrar (Respondent No.2) and the Divisional Joint Commissioner (Respondent No.3), acting under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, declared the sale-deed illegal and ordered the return of the property. However, prior to these administrative proceedings, the petitioner had already secured a decree of perpetual injunction from a Civil Court in 2008. In that suit, the Civil Court expressly rejected the respondent's defense that the sale-deed was a sham money-lending transaction and declared the petitioner as the sole owner. Additionally, a similar complaint by the respondent had been rejected by the authorities in 2009 under the erstwhile 1946 Act.Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the orders of the District Deputy Registrar, the Divisional Joint Commissioner, and the Registrar General (who dismissed a revision as non-maintainable) through this Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court.Issue: Whether administrative authorities under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, can record findings contrary to a prior adjudication by a competent Civil Court regarding the nature of a transaction; and whether a transaction can be classified as "money lending" without believable evidence of interest.Holding: No, the authorities cannot override Civil Court findings. The High Court quashed the impugned orders, holding that once a Civil Court determines the nature of a document, that adjudication is binding on statutory authorities.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that adjudication by a competent Civil Court on the nature of a transaction (absolute sale vs. mortgage/security) operates as res judicata and is binding on authorities under the 2014 Act. The spirit of Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC must be respected to avoid conflicting decisions. Furthermore, under Section 2 of the Act, "business of money lending" requires the advancement of a "loan", which is defined as money advanced at "interest". Since the respondent's claim of interest was found to be an afterthought and unbelievable (lacking in earlier pleadings), the authorities had no jurisdiction under Section 18 to declare the sale-deed invalid. The Court also rejected the preliminary objection of an "alternate remedy", stating that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and an abuse of process.