Allowed

State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and Ors., v. Peter B. Colaco and Sons

Bombay HC14 Feb 2020FA/139/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 15/2005 due to excessive assumptions and inadequate evaluation of evidence. The matter was remanded to the District Court to dispose of the suit afresh based on existing evidence without granting further liberty to lead evidence. The appeal and cross objection were disposed of in these terms.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 15/2005 were set aside and the matter remanded to the District Court for fresh disposal. The Registry is directed to transmit records within two week

State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and Ors… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2010
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2 OF 2011

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2010

¶5

1. State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat at Porvorim.

¶6

2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VII (NH), PWD, Near Patto Bridge, Panaji, Goa.

¶7

3. The Chief Engineer, PWD, Altinho, Panaji-
Goa. ….Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Peter B. Colaco & Sons, A registered
partnership firm, with office at Montezinha Bldg.,
Old Market, Margao, Goa 403 601. Represented
by its Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Guruprasad

¶10

S. Ghate, R/o H. No. 309, Comba, Margao, Goa.….Respondent

¶11

***

¶12

Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the
Appellants in First Appeal No. 139/2010 and for the Respondents in
Cross Objection No. 2/2011.

¶13

Mr. S.D. Padiyar with Mr. P. Shirodkar and Mr. S. Bhangui, Advocates
for the Respondent in First Appeal No. 139/2010 and for the
Appellant in Cross Objection No. 2/2011.

¶14

Coram:- M.S. SONAK &
 SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
Date:- 14th February, 2020

¶15

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶17

Heard Ms. Sapna Mordekar, the learned Additional

¶18

Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Padiyar, the learned
Counsel for the respondents/cross objectors.

¶19

2.The learned Counsel for the parties, on the basis of
instructions, submit that that the impugned judgment and decree
dated 19.06.2010, which is to be read along with corrigendum dated
25.10.2010 in Civil Suit No. 15/2005, be set aside and the matter be
remanded to the learned District Judge for passing fresh orders, after
taking into consideration all the contentions of the parties.

¶20

3.The learned Counsel for the parties state that no liberty be
granted for leading further evidence in the matter and directions may
be issued to dispose off Civil Suit No. 15/2005, on the basis of oral
and documentary evidence, which is already been produced by the
parties.

¶21

4.On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, we also
find that most of the contentions of the parties, have either not been
dealt with or in any case, the reasoning proceeds on the basis of

¶22

¶23

excessive assumptions. The oral and documentary evidence on the
record has not been properly evaluated. For these reasons, we see no
difficulty in accepting the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the
parties.

¶24

5.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and
decree and remand the matter to the concerned District Court in order
to dispose off Civil Suit No. 15/2005 afresh. However, by 'afresh', we
should not be misunderstood as granting any liberty to the parties to
lead fresh evidence in the matter. The concerned District Judge will
have to dispose off the suit on the basis of the evidence already
produced by the parties on record, but, after hearing the oral
arguments. This time, the concerned District Judge to ensure that the
contentions of both the parties are referred to and addressed while
disposing off the suit.

¶25

6.As a condition for interim relief, the appellants were
directed to deposit the decreetal amount. This amount has been
deposited and is invested in a nationalized Bank. The learned Counsel
for the parties submit that such deposit/investment may continue until
the concerned District Judge disposes off Civil Suit No. 15/2005
afresh. Once, the suit is disposed off, liberty to the parties to apply for
suitable orders in relation to such deposit/investment. Registry to
ensure that the investment with the nationalized Bank continues for an

¶26

¶27

initial period of at least, one year from today. The Registry is now
directed to transmit all the records to the concerned District Judge,
within a period of two weeks from today. The parties are directed to
appear before the concerned Principal District Judge on 9th March,
2020 at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of receiving directions as to further
proceedings in the suit. But taking into consideration that the Civil
Suit is of the year 2005, we direct that the same may be disposed off
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of records from
this Court.

¶28

7.The Appeal and the Cross Objection, are disposed off in
the aforesaid terms.

¶29

8.The drawing of formal decree of this judgment and order
is dispensed with.

¶30

SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.M. S. SONAK, J.

¶31

EV

State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and Ors., v. Peter B. Colaco and Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and Ors., v. Peter B. Colaco and Sons

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

Maura Gonsalves., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the Director of Sports and Youth Affairs and Anr.

Indrajit Banerjee., Vs the State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Cobra Personnel and Intelligence Services, Thr. Its Successor, Clayton Rodolfo Savio Fernandes., Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Panaji.

Peter B. Colaco and Sons Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Ivan Singh Vs the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax CIRCLE-1 (1) and Anr.

Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas, Thr. Attorney, George Agnelo D'Souza., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.