Dismissed
Gajanan Vithalrao Boche v. the State of Maharashtra
Bombay HCPIL/24/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
smpil24
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.24 OF 2008
Gajanan Vitthalrao Boche...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and another ...Respondents
Mr.Anand D. Gugale and Mr.Sandeep Dere for the
Petitioner
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent No.1
Ms Priyanka Desai i/b M/s.K.Ashar & Co. for
respondent No.2
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 21,2014
P.C.:
1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The letter dated 22nd October 2007 submitted by the
petitioner to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice was
treated as Suo Motu PIL.
2 Following are the prayers made in the PIL:(i)All the pending private complaints under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act,1881 should be stayed:
(ii)Information should be obtained by the
State Government as to in how many cases in
which complaints under section 138 of the
said Act of 1881 have been filed where the
smpil24
2
accused or the family members of the
accused have lost their lives either by
suicide or due to mental tension due to
such complaints;
(iii)Direction may be issued to make
recovery of stamp duty together with cost
and fine from the complainants in the
complaints under section 138 of the said
Act of 1881;
(iv)The Banks and Co-operative Societies
be restrained from recovering the amounts
on the basis of the blank cheques obtained
from the borrowers.
3After letter was entertained as Suo Motu PIL,
amendment has been made to the law relating to Court
Fees. Now Court fee is payable on the complaints
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act,1881. No reasons are required to be assigned for
coming to the conclusion that the other prayers
quoted above are misconceived and cannot be granted
in writ jurisdiction. Hence, we reject the PIL.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gajanan Vitthalrao Boche
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
A.S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court