- 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
- 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
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Declines To Quash Probe In Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Scam; Accused Ajit Pawar Fails To Get Relief
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has declined to quash an investigation into the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank (MSCB) scam and asked the Maharashtra state police to conduct a free and fair probe into the case.The development which has come before the Maharashtra polls is being perceived as a political setback to Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar. NCP chief...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has declined to quash an investigation into the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank (MSCB) scam and asked the Maharashtra state police to conduct a free and fair probe into the case.
The development which has come before the Maharashtra polls is being perceived as a political setback to Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar.
NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s nephew Ajit Pawar and others are accused of being complicit in causing MSCB’s losses to the tune of Rs 1,000 crore between 2007 and 2011.
The other accused in the case include Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) leader Jayant Patil and bank officials in 34 districts in the state.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had ordered lodging a First Information Report (FIR) against Ajit Pawar and more than 70 others in the Rs 1,000-crore scam.
Ajit Pawar had moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.
However, a bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah, declined to entertain the plea seeking to quash the investigation.