For your matter consult a senior and able lawyer.
RBI has been issuing informative and detailed narrations e.g;
Report of the Technical Group Set up to Review Legislations on Money Lending
https://rbi.org.in/scriptts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=513
Salient features of the Money Lending Legislations
4.4. An examination of the money lending legislations of 22 States shows that the provisions are generally similar. The salient features are:
Penalties for carrying on business without licence and for intimidating the debtors or interfering with their day-to-day activities, including the cognizability of such offences;
Maximum rates of interest that can be charged;
Matters that the Courts are required/empowered to decide in suits filed by moneylenders;
Interest Rates
4.10 Interest rates chargeable by moneylenders are either fixed by Statute or the Statutes empower the respective Governments to fix the interest rate by issue of notification from time to time. The same forms a bench-mark for the Courts to determine whether the interest rates charged are excessive in the given facts and circumstances of a case. The Courts are also empowered to examine whether or not interest rates charged on a loan transaction are excessive under a central legislation, namely, the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, wherein guidelines for determining what is ‘excessive’ have been provided in terms of Section 3(2) of the said Act. Some States have provisions empowering the Courts to limit the amount of interest to a sum less than the principal of the loan while passing a decree and also for reopening of transactions.
You may go thru highly informative thread at:
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/NO-LICENCE-Dismissed-cheque-bounce-case-11347.asp#.VYvMXFJ-hkg
https://revenueharyana.gov.in/html/gazeteers/faridabad_1994/Chapter_VI.pdf
You can have a feel of the ‘How the moneylenders and their lawyers handle the cases’
From following judgments:
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sharad Shukla vs Sushil Kumar Sharma on 8 April, 2013
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28652241/?type=print
Anil Baburao Kataria vs. Purshottam Prabhakar Kawane 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 771, wherein, it was held as under:-
"10. I may also refer to Section 32B(b) of the said Act,which lays down that whoever carries on the business of money-lending at any place without holding a valid licence authorising him to carry on such business at such place, shall, on conviction, be punished for the first offence with imprisonment of either descripttion which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees one thousand and five hundred or with both and for the second or subsequent offence, in addition to, or in lieu of, the penalty specified in clause (i) with imprisonment which shall not be less than two years, where such person is not a company, and with fine which shall not be less than rupees five thousand, where such person is a company."
