Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Lalit v. the Union of India and 2 Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2014PIL/77/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 77 of 2014, an advocate and Company Secretary sought directions to modify eligibility criteria for legal professionals empanelled by banks and to allow Company Secretaries to do legal work in banks. The court held such matters fall within the domain of banks to decide and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No directions were issued to modify eligibility criteria or allow Company Secretaries to do legal work.

Sanjay Kumar Lalit Vs the Union of India and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

dssherla

907-pil-77-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.77 OF 2014

Sanjay Kumar Lalit

.. Petitioner.

vs.

The Union of India and ors. .. Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Lalit, the petitioner-in-person. Mr. Ravindra A. Lokhande for Respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. S. Samdani i/b Dave & Girish Co. for Respondent No.3

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2014

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The petitioner, an advocate aged about 50 years, who was enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in Mumbai last year, has prayed for various reliefs and in particular has prayed for a direction to the Union of India in the Ministry of Law and Justice Department, Reserve Bank of India and Indian Banks' Association to review the existing practice of eligibility criteria for empanelment of legal professionals.

¶15

2] When the petitioner sought information from one of the Nationalised Banks being Bank of India about the criteria for engaging the legal professionals, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 29 October 2013 and 30 November 2013 that advocates with an experience of at least five years successful

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

dssherla 2 907-pil-77-2014

¶18

practice and conversant with commercial laws are considered for empanelment and that an internal committee headed by the Zonal Manager shall be the authority for finalizing the panel of advocates for the Zone, on recommendations received from the branches.

¶19

3] The petitioner has prayed for a direction that the respondents be directed to make proper eligibility criteria for empanelment of practising Company Secretaries to do legal work of banks in accordance with the Companies Act and other related Corporate Laws. The petitioner who is an advocate and also a qualified Company Secretary is seeking the above directions.

¶20

4] We are of the view that this Court would not be justified in entertaining this public interest litigation. It is for the Banks to consider what eligibility criteria should be adopted for engaging legal professionals.

¶21

5] The Public Interest Litigation is, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶24

2 of 2

Sanjay Kumar Lalit v. the Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Lalit v. the Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Mr. Amit Mehra Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Principal Secretary and 4 Ors.

Arvind S/O Hiraman Gajbhiye Vs State of Maha.,Thr. Sec. Min.of Revenue and Forest Deptt., and Thr.Pri. Sec.Min.of Env.Deptt. and 4

Praful Vithal Loke Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

Shri. Chandrakant Keshav Palav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

Rajasthan Sanskriti Sanrakshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Baburaon Ajabrao Deshmukh, and Another Vs the Collector, Buldana, and 5 Others

Shahnaz Jahan Saeed and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs (Haj Cell) and Ors.

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra State Scale Industries Development Corporation Vs M/S Thakkar Warehousing Agency

Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State Vs Miss. Neelima D/O Anant Surve

Meera Sanyal and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Ram Baburao Salve Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors.