Allowed

White Raj Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Herein by Its Aut. Officer Shri. Ulhas Datta Warik., v. Dr. Shaba Rama Naik Gaonkar @ Chandrakant Rama Naik Gaonkar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2017WP/1184/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging an order directing respondent impleadment were allowed. Impugned orders were set aside, and civil suits were transferred to the Senior Civil Judge in Margao for consolidated hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders directed impleadment set aside. Civil suits transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Margao.

White Raj Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Herein by… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP1184-1191&STM 4014/16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 1184/2016 to 1191 of 2016 and

¶4

STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO.4014/2016

¶5

WHITE RAJ RESORTS PVT. LTD. A private limited compnay duly incorporated under Indian Companies Act 1956 represented herein by its authorised officer Shri Ulhas Datta Warik, Son of late Datta Warik, Aged 69 years, Resident H. No.42/B, Patnem, Canacona, Goa … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dr. Shaba Rama Naik Gaonkar @ Chandrakant Rama Naik Gaonkar Major, age 60 years, married, Businessman, Resident of Flat H-B-4-D, 5^th floor, Ruby Residency, Canacona, 403 702, Salcete-Goa.

¶8

Mr. Vinod Naik, Major, age 53 years, married, Businessman, Resident of H. No.2136, Agalli, Golgol, Margao-403601- Goa.

¶9

Mr. Suraj Balliker Major, 37 years of age, married, Businessman, r/o. H.No.262, Deul wada, Quepem, 403705-Salcete Goa. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Siddharth Samant, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions.

¶11

Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the respondents in all the petitions.

¶12

WP1184-1191&STM 4014/16

¶13

¶14

Coram:- C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶15

Date:- 30th January, 2017

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶18

All these petitions are between the same parties and they can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.

¶19

The challenge in these petitions is to the order, directing impleadment of the parties in a suit filed by the petitioner. Indisputably, the nine suits out of which, the present petitions arise, are pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge, J.D. at Canacona, while Special Civil Suit No.17/2016 filed by the petitioner against the respondents, relating to the same subject matter, is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao.

¶20

Shri De Sa, the learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that he will not press for impleadment and

¶21

¶22

WP1184-1191&STM 4014/16

¶23

the Civil Suits may be transferred to the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao, where Special Civil Suit No.17/2016 is pending. In other words, the respondents concede for setting aside of the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection for transfer of the suits to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao. In such circumstances, the petitions are disposed of in the following terms, by consent of the parties :

¶24

(i) The petitions are allowed.

¶25

(ii) The impugned orders dated 21/11/2016 are hereby set aside.

¶26

(iii) Regular Civil Suit Nos.57/2016 to 65/2016 are hereby withdrawn from the file of the learned Civil Judge, J. D. at Canacona and are transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao, where Special Civil Suit No.17/2016 is pending.

¶27

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶28

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶29

SMA

White Raj Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Herein by Its Aut. Officer Shri. Ulhas Datta Warik., v. Dr. Shaba Rama Naik Gaonkar @ Chandrakant Rama Naik Gaonkar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

White Raj Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Herein by Its Aut. Officer Shri. Ulhas Datta Warik., v. Dr. Shaba Rama Naik Gaonkar @ Chandrakant Rama Naik Gaonkar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Rajaram Giri Naik., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Secretary and 2 Ors.

The Shiroda Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Rep. Herein Thr. Its Br. Manager,Shri Gurudas P. Naik Vs Shri. Gokuldas D. Naik and Anr.

The Shiroda Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Rep. Herein Thr. Its Br. Manager,Shri Gurudas P. Naik Vs Shri. Gokuldas D. Naik and Anr.

White Raj Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Aut. Officer Shri. Ulhas Datta Warik., Vs Dr. Shaba Rama Naik Gaonkar @ Chandrakant Rama Naik Gaonkar and 2 Ors.

M/S. Shruti Ore Carriers, a Prop. Concer of Mrs. Shakuntala Sajjan Kudav and Anr., Vs M/S. Synergy Trade Exchange, a Prop Concern of Mr. Rohan Lobo.

Shri. Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu and 3 Ors., Vs Mrs. Sitadevi Deshprabhu @ Jaia Valaulcar, Thr. Her Attor. Mrs. Devika D. Kulkarni and 4 Ors.