SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1490

A.P.SHAH, D.K.DESHMUKH, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
Vijay C. Pulja – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Vinod Bobde, Senior Advocate with Vineet B. Naik and Arjun Bobde, E.P. Bharucha, Special Counsel with Bhomi Patel, AGP, Y.R. Singh, N.P. Deshpande, AGP, Kirit J. Hakari, Parul Bhatia i/b. Mulla & Mulla, Naveen Chomal, Kantharia, APP, Nitin Pradhan, S.D. Khot i/b. M/s. Law Global, S.K. Jain, M.S. Mohite, S.R. Borulkar, APP., S.P. Kadam, G.P. Rajan, D.M. Shah & P.G. Karande, A.M. Saraogi, D.S. Mehta, APP, A.N. Makhijani, D.S. Mhaispurkar, APP, A.S. Gadkari, APP, Shirish Gupte with M.N. Vaishnav i/b. N.N. Vaishnava & Co., Sameer Vaidya, K.V. Saste, APP, A.V. Chatuphale, K.V. Saste, APP, Mudij Sharma with Yashpal Thakkar, Paras Kuhad, S.S. Tatkar, APP, Samir A. Vaidya with L.R. Castelino, P.S. Hingorani, APP, Usha Kejariwal, APP, B.V. Ghanekar, B.H. Mehta, APP, V.R. Bhansali, APP, R.S. Khadapkar, APP, S.P. Kanuga for S.G. Aney, Sr. Advocate i/b. K.J. Reddy, J.J. Shah, A.M. Shringarpure, APP, A.H.H. Ponda, Kamal Jain, R.M. Sadhavi, APP., S.S. Sayyed, R.M. Sadhavi, APP, S.G. Aney with H. Toor with F. Pooniwala, Z.A. Haq, Firoz Palkhiwala, Firdosh Pooniwala, S.A. Ahmed, S.S., Bhole i/b. Cr. Bayley & Co.

Judgment :

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, forms the basis of challenge in this batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. These petitions have been placed before the Full Bench by the Learned Chief Justice, in pursuance of a reference made on rd 3 September 2004 by a Division Bench. Though the Act has been challenged on several grounds, arguments before the Court have been confined to the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the law. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the State had fairly stated before the Court that it would become necessary for the Court to deal with the other challenges only in the event that this Court does not accept the principal challenge on the ground of a want of legislative competence. We have come to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act are ultra vires for want of legislative competence in the State Legislature.

FACTS

2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition 5186 of 2001, was a whole time Director of Pennar Paterson Securities Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act,





































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top