Disposed

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Dept.) and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2021PIL/123/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, practicing advocates from Nagpur, challenged the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018. While maintaining that the Act was brought into force, they sought to raise practical difficulties regarding the overburdened single Commercial Court in Nagpur. The court granted liberty to file a representation to the High Court and disposed of the PIL.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to make a representation to the High Court regarding difficulties in the functioning of the Commercial Courts in Nagpur. PIL disposed.

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another Vs Union of… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2021)

Order

1702pil123.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 123/2018.

¶6

Rahul Ramchand Kishnani and another. …. Petitioners.

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

Union of India and others.

¶9

…. Respondents.

¶10

Shri S.S. Dewani, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, A.S.G.I. for the Respondent No.1. Shri A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2021.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.

¶14

This petition is filed by two practicing Advocates from the City of Nagpur. When the Public Interest Litigation was filed on 17 September 2018, the Petitioners had challenged various provisions of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial

Order

1702pil123.18

Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018. Notice was issued and petition has come up on board today.

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners fairly states that as the Act has now been brought in force, the Petitioners, the Advocates, are not pressing their challenge regarding the validity of the provisions, however, they wish to project certain practical difficulties faced by the Advocates and litigants in the city of Nagpur in respect of functioning of the Commercial Courts. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that at present there is only one Commercial Court notified in the City of Nagpur and all commercial matters, including the Arbitration matters are assigned to one Commercial Court Judge and the said Court is over burdened. He seeks to rely upon the statistics to demonstrate this position.

¶20

Reply affidavit is filed by the Legal Advisor-cum-Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department of Respondent No.3 stating that the Courts are constituted considering the pending cases in a particular jurisdiction and the Commercial Courts are constituted on proposal to that effect moved by the High Court. It is stated that the State may constitute more Commercial Courts if proposed by the High Court.

¶21

That being a stand taken by the State, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the Petitioners to make a representation

Order

1702pil123.18

to the High Court on its administrative side setting forth the difficulties as orally advanced before us. Granting this liberty to the Petitioners, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶26

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶27

Rgd

¶28

Digitally signed Rakesh by RakeshDhuriya Date: Dhuriya 2021.02.24 14:29:14 +0530

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Dept.) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Dept.) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Irshad S/O Jabbar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Shri Prasad S/O Keshavrao Pimpale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Sachin Bhimrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Nagnath Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas S/O Dattatraya Gurnule Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Asif Shaukat Qureshi vs Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Another

Painganga Bahu-Uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Yeotmal Thr. President Suresh Bhama Reddy Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Geeta Mahendra Kadu and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Department of Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Bal Gangadhar Tilak Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, through Its Secretary, Vilas Sheshrao Mamulkar Vs the Stte of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department

Vishnu S/O Motiram Raut and Others Vs the Government of India Thr. Chief Secretary, the National Tiger Conservation Authority and Others

Sou. Suwarnkala W/O Janardan Khatod Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thermal Power Energy Depatment, Mumbai and Others