- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court's notice to ex-chief minister It was claimed that Devendra Fadnavis misused his position to transfer the accounts of police officials The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court issued a fresh notice to the former chief minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis on public interest litigation (PIL). The PIL alleged irregularities in the transfer of bank accounts of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay High Court's notice to ex-chief minister
It was claimed that Devendra Fadnavis misused his position to transfer the accounts of police officials
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court issued a fresh notice to the former chief minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis on public interest litigation (PIL). The PIL alleged irregularities in the transfer of bank accounts of police officials from a nationalized bank to a private bank where Fadnavis' wife Amruta Fadnavis occupied a senior position.
The plea was filed in 2019 by a Nagpur-based social worker. Subsequently, the court had issued a notice to Fadnavis, who was then the chief minister. However, due to the change in his address after his tenure ended, the notice could not be served upon him.
Hence the bench of Justice S B Shukre and Justice A L Pansare issued him a fresh notice. The court also issued a notice to the newly-arraigned respondents, the State Bank of India and the Axis Bank.
The plea was filed after the petitioner discovered that the Fadnavis-led government's decision to transfer all bank accounts of police officials and beneficiaries of the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana to Axis Bank. It was not only a private bank, but also where Amruta served as the vice-president.
Under the Right to Information Act (RTI), the PIL stated that the circular issued by the Fadnavis' government through the state home department in 2017, promoted the private bank and led to a loss for the nationalized bank.
"The Chief Minister of Maharashtra State used his official position to obtain the pecuniary advantage of Amruta Fadnavis without any public interest," the plea stated. The petitioner also claimed it was a fit case for enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.