Smt. Savita Sadanand Bondre, nee Gulab Vinayak Sete Manerkar v. Shri. Jagannath Vinayak Manerkar, Businessman, and his wife
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S A BOBDE
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. After hearing the matter for some time, following order is passed in the interest of justice. a) The petitioner's application U/s.151of C.P.C. is not liable for interference on the ground of an error of law. However, Mr. Dessai…
Judgment
Cause title
2)Smt. Savita Sadanand Bondre, nee Gulab Vinayak Sete Manerkar, w/o. Shri Sadanand Bondre, major, resident of Bazarpeth, Pernem, Goa 3) Shri Sadanand Vinayak Bondre, (Since deceased through his legal Representatives) 3a) Shri Vallabh Sadanand Bondre, 3b) Mrs. Vishaka Vallabh Bondre, both major of age, residing at Bazarpeth, Mauswada, Pernem, Goa. 4) Mrs. Sushma Atul Patnekar, 5) Mr. Atul Patnekar, Both major of age, residing at Margaon, Goa.
Versus
Petitioners
2 1) Shri. Jagannath Vinayak Manerkar, Businessman, and his wife, 2) Smt. Medini Jagannath Manerkar, Both Major of age and residing at H.No.8/115, Mapusa, Goa. 3) Sesa Goa Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Sesa Ghor, 20 EDC Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa. 4) Smt. Shalini Yeshwant Pangam, major of age, daughter of late Vinayak Shet Manerkar: since deceased through L.R's 4a) Shri. Ajit Yeshwant Pangam, major, Businessman, son of late Yeshwant Pangam, and his wife all residing at Shalini Building, Ansabhat, Mapusa, Goa. 4b) Smt. Bharati Ajit Pangam, Major, residing at Shalini Building, Ansabhat, Mapusa, Goa. 5) Shri Ajit Yeshwant Pangam, major, Businessman, son of late Yeshwant Pangam, and his wife all residing at Shalini Building, Ansabhat, Mapusa, Goa. 6) M/s. Damodar Mangalji Co. Pvt. Ltd., Goa A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at Casa Damodar, Panaji, Goa. 7) M/s. V.S.Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., a registered company having its registered office at Dempo House, 3 Campal, Panaji, Goa. 8) Shri. Deepak Jaywant Natekar, major of age, businessman, son of late Jaywant Natekar, and his wife 9) Mrs. Shradha Deepak Natekar, wife of Deepak Jaywant Natekar both residents of Shiroda, Taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurga, Maharashtra. ..... Respondents
Mr. S.G.Desai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shivan Desai with
Mr P. Talaulikar, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.G.Ramani, Advocate for the respondent No.3..
Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar,, Advocate for the respondent No.7.
Mr. P. Rao, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Coram :- S. A. BOBDE, J. Date : - 02nd May, 2008.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Operative part
Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. After hearing the matter for some time, following order is passed in the interest of justice. a) The petitioner's application U/s.151of C.P.C. is not liable for interference on the ground of an error of law. However, Mr. Dessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners points out and in my view rightly that the petitioner No.2 is of 76 years of age and had sought re- 4 examination of herself which has been rejected by the Trial Court. He further submitted that liberty has been granted to the petitioner No.2 to raise the issue of re-examination in appeal in case the suit is decided against her. However, if the request for re-examination was allowed by the Appellate Court, in the circumstances of this particular case it is not possible to predict the petitioner No.2's availability for giving evidence having regard to her age. He, therefore, requests that her statement may be allowed to be recorded on re-examination and kept it in sealed cover and in case the request for the re-examination is allowed, may be referred to. The request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is reasonable and in accordance with the ratio adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Versus State of Gujarat and anotehr reported in (2001)3 SCC 1 though the facts are different. b) In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is directed to permit re-examination of the petitioner No.2 and keep the questions and objections, if any, in sealed cover. The statement so recorded and kept in sealed cover shall be read or discarded in accordance with the directions of the Appellate Court. c) Needless to say that these observations are made purely having mere exigency in this particular case and shall not in any way affect the decision of the suit or the decision of the appeal on any of the questions including the question of re-examination of the witness. 5 The writ petition is disposed of. SMA S. A. BOBDE, J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.