Bombay High Court
WP/433/2003 of SHRI SHARADCHANDRA RAYA SINAI KHANDEPARKAR and 3 ORS Vs SHRI JAYANT SIURAMA SINAI KHANDEPARKAR and 5 ORS., on 12 December 2003
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA **** WRIT PETITION NO. 433 Of 2003 1. Shri Sharadchandra Raya Sinai Khandeparkar, aged 61, married and his wife, 2. Smt. Maya Sharadchandra Sinai Khandeparkar, aged 55, both r/o A /6, II Floor, Deepra Vihar, Near Star House, Tonca, Caranzalem, Goa, 3. Dr. Satischandra
WRITPETITION NO. 433 Of 2003
1. Shri Sharadchandra Raya
Sinai Khandeparkar, aged
61, married and his wife,
2. Smt. Maya Sharadchandra
Sinai Khandeparkar,
aged 55, both r/o A/6,
II Floor, Deepra Vihar,
Near Star House, Tonca,
Caranzalem, Goa,
3. Dr. Satischandra Raya
Sinai Khandeparkar, aged
46, married and his wife,
4. Smt. Manju Satischandra
Sinai Khandeparkar, aged
42, both r/o F-4,
Leopoldina Mansion, Fr.
Jose Vaz Road,
Vasco da Gama, Goa.
... Petitioners.
Versus
1. Shri Jayant Siurama Sinai
Khandeparkar, of major age,
married and his wife,
2. Smt. Seema Jayant Sinai
Khandeparkar, of major age,
3. Smt. Susheelabai Siurama
Sinai Khandeparkar, of major
age, all r/o II Floor,
Flat No.10, Behind Viera
Apartments, Behind Ponda
Municipal Council, Ponda,
Goa,
4. M/s. Key Pee Rolling Mill
Pvt. Ltd., with office at
Goglavoril Mol, Usgao,
Goa,
5. The Economic Development
Corporation of Goa, Daman
and Diu, EDC House, Panaji,
Goa, and
6. Ms. Kundil ISPAT Limited,
a Company duly incorporated
- 2 -
and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, with
its registered office at
Goglavoril Mol, Opp.
Hindustan Foods, Usgo, Goa.
... Respondents.
Shri Sudesh Usgaokar, advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R. G. Ramani, advocate for respondent nos. l, 2 and 3.
Shri M. S. Sonak, advocate for respondent no.5.
Shri N. K. Sawaikar, advocate for respondent no.6.
CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
forthwith by consent.
2. The short question involved in this petition is whether it was open to the trial Court to pass order which is in not in conformity with the direction given by this Court.
It is not necessary to burden this judgment with all the events that unfolded in filing the writ Petition no. 21 of
2003. The respondents challenged the order passed by the trial Court which was in favour of the petitioners herein in the said Writ Petition. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition in its decision dated 23rd January, 2003, issued the following directions:- "The learned Trial Court shall exhibit those two documents subject to the objections regarding their admissibility to decide at the time of final disposal of the suit. Thelearned Trial Court should not be influencedby any of the objections made regarding theiradmissibility impugned in the presentpetition."
On this Order, the matter went back to the trial Court and the trial Court instead of exhibiting those documents as directed by this Court, chose to only mark those documents as ‘X’, subject to production of original hand-written proof of the documents so produced. This is the limited grievance made in the present petition. Although learned counsel for the respondents made a vehement attempt to justify this Order, to my mind, the approach of the trial Court cannot be countenanced. Once the superior Court issues direction and even if that direction is inappropriate, the trial Court is nevertheless bound to comply with those directions. As in the present case this Court directed the trial Court to exhibit the subject documents, but instead of exhibiting those documents the trial Court has only taken those documents on record and marked them as ‘X’ subject to production of original hand-written proof. That was not the scope of the order passed by this Court.
3. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed, the Order as passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass necessary orders in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court on 23rd January, 2003. The apprehension of the respondents that objections regarding incorrect exhibition of the subject documents will get finally resolved is not right, inasmuch as this Court by Order dated 17th March, 2003, has clarified that position which in my view is already recorded in the earlier Order dated 23rd January, 2003. The question
regarding issue of admissibility of those documents will be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. No order as to costs.
mc.