Plaintiff entered into a collaboration agreement with defendant for redevelopment of immovable property. Plaintiff paid certain amount in cash.Suspecting certain fraud, plaintiff lodged a police complaint, leading to an FIR against defendant. Despite multiple attempts to resolve dispute and recover funds, no refund was made  In  suit, plaintiff claimed refund of amount paid to defendant in cash, along with interest. Defendant contended that this payment in cash made by plaintiff was in direct violation of section 269ST(b), accordingly, Collaboration Agreement, being founded on an illegal consideration, was null and void.Consequently, this Court was precluded from entertaining suit for recovery on account of alleged illegality of transaction. Court held that section 269ST merely regulates mode of transaction and imposes a fiscal penalty without rendering agreement itself void and thus, mere receipt of cash in violation of section 269ST would not, by itself, render underlying agreement void or unenforceable in a civil court nor would it would preclude initiation of a money recovery proceeding. Further, statutory penalty prescribed for contravention of section 269ST was imposed upon recipient and not payer.  Accordingly, defendant could not be allowed to unjustly enrich himself by retaining money under guise of statutory violation of section 269ST, which drew penal liability solely against him.  Defendant, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of statutory violation, is misconceived, as the same fails to establish any express legal prohibition that would preclude the Court from adjudicating the instant claim for recovery. Circular No. 2/2018, dated 15.02.2018.