Petitioners challenged Maharashtra Money Lending Act in PIL. Bench declined cognizance without specific case, citing earlier 1946 Act deficiency and directing fresh approach with facts.
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.
1
0104pil24.15
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
P.I.L. No. 24 of 2015
Sarangsing s/o Shivdassing Chavhan & anr.
v.
State of Maharashtra & ors.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Mr. S.S. Dhengale Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Govt. Pleader for respondents.
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari & S.B. Shukre, JJ.
Date : 1st April, 2015.
Heard.
The arguments are not borne out from any particular case or stance on record. The Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act has come into force only in 2014. The earlier Act (1946 Act) did not contain any provision empowering respondents to deal with immovable properties. The judgment of this Court in
Ramesh Daulatrao Gawhale & ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
ors. reported in 2007(3) ALL MR 725 has specifically held accordingly and thereafter the need for amendment was felt.
In this situation, as we are not in a position to consider the challenge in the back ground of a particular case, in public interest litigation, we are not inclined to take cognizance of the
2
0104pil24.15
dispute of the present nature. Therefore, with liberty to petitioner to approach again with appropriate necessary facts and data, we dispose of this P.I.L.
Judge Judge
/TA/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether High Court can take cognizance of constitutional challenge to Maharashtra Money Lending Act in PIL without specific case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Daulatrao Gawhale & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors.Referred¶14
Ramesh Daulatrao Gawhale & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2007(3) ALL MR 725
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sarangsing s/o Shivdassing Chavhan & anr.
State of Maharashtra & ors.
B.P. Dharmadhikari
S.B. Shukre
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
