The High Court in Goa allowed four Civil Revision Applications seeking transfer of proceedings from FTC, Panaji to District Judge-2, Ponda due to allegations of bias and recusal.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATIONS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 OF 2020 DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Cra no.2,3,4 & 5 of 2020 (F)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.2,3,4 & 5 OF 2020
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2020
VISHNUDAS D. SADHALE ..…. APPLICANT
Versus
VINAYAK P. SHINKRE (DECEASED) THR. LRS. ........ RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATIONS NO.3,4 & 5 OF 2020
KASHINATH TIMA GAUDE AND ANR. …. APPLICANTS
Versus
PRADEEP VISHNU SHINKRE AND 2 ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
Shri Nilesh Shirodkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri P. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Shri Jatin Ramaiya, Advocate for the Respondents No.2.
Coram:- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
Date:- 10 February 2021.
ORAL ORDER :
Civil Revision Application No.2 of 2020 arises out of the reference proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, pending before the Ad hoc District Judge -1, FTC, Panaji. Civil Revision Application Nos.3 to 5 of 2020 arise out of the Panchayat Raj Act. In all these four cases, the petitioners wanted the proceedings transferred from the Ad hoc District Judge-1, FTC, Panaji to District Judge-2 at Ponda. For that
2
Cra no.2,3,4 & 5 of 2020 (F) purpose, the petitioners applied under Section 24 of CPC. The Principal District Judge at North Goa, through a common order dated 25.11.2019, refused to transfer the cases.
“3. Transfer of a case from one Court to another is a very sensitive and delicate Issue which, in case of order of transfer, casts doubt either on the competence or integrity of the Judge. Unless litigant seeking transfer makes out a prima facie case to hold that the conduct of the Judge creates reasonable apprehension in his mind that he would not get justice, no order shall be passed transferring such cases.
12010 (2) Mh.L.J. 433
3
Cra no.2,3,4 & 5 of 2020 (F)
I, therefore, dismiss all the four Civil Revision Applications with no order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
NH
NITI K Digitally signed by NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2021.02.16 10:30:50 +05'30'
2510 US 540 (1994), as quoted in Indore Development Authority (Recusal Matter 5) v. Manohar Lal , (2020) 6 SCC 304.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have interfered with the District Judge's refusal to transfer the civil revision applications.
Whether the recusal of the former Presiding Officer justified the transfer of the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Charu K. Mehta v. Chetan P. MehtaReferred¶25
_Charu K.Mehta v. Chetan P. Mehta_
United States v. John Paul LitekyReferred¶30
_John Patrick Liteky v. United States_
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VISHNUDAS D. SADHALE
VINAYAK P. SHINKRE THR. LRS.
KASHINATH TIMA GAUDE AND ANR.
PRADEEP VISHNU SHINKRE AND 2 ORS.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
