Dismissed

Vishnudas D. Sadhale., v. Vinayak P. Shinkre (Deceased) Thr. Lrs.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2021CRA/2/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismissed Civil Revision Applications against the rejection of petitions seeking transfer of proceedings from one District Judge to another. The Court upheld the lower court's discretion, relying on US Supreme Court principles that mere allegations of prior participation do not justify recusal without a prima facie case of apprehension.

What did the court decide?

All four Civil Revision Applications dismissed with no order as to costs.

Vishnudas D. Sadhale., Vs Vinayak P. Shinkre… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Cra no.2,3,4 & 5 of 2020 (F)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.2,3,4 & 5 OF 2020

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2020

¶6

VISHNUDAS D. SADHALE ..…. APPLICANT

¶7

Versus

¶8

VINAYAK P. SHINKRE (DECEASED) THR. LRS. ........ RESPONDENTS

¶9

WITH

¶10

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATIONS NO.3,4 & 5 OF 2020

¶11

KASHINATH TIMA GAUDE AND ANR. …. APPLICANTS

¶12

Versus

¶13

PRADEEP VISHNU SHINKRE AND 2 ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS

¶14

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.

¶15

Coram:- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶16

Date:- 10 February 2021.

¶17

ORAL ORDER :

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

Initially, all these cases were before the District Judge-2 at Ponda. But the learned Presiding Officer recused herself from hearing the matters because she had appeared for one of the parties when she had been practising. Then, the District Judge transferred the matters to the Ad hoc District Judge-1, FTC at Panaji.

¶22

Before the Ad hoc District Judge-1, FTC, Panaji, the petitioners pleaded for the Presiding Officer's recusal. Later, he invoked Section 24 of CPC.

¶23

The petitioners have cited, as the reason for transfer, that the Presiding Officer at the transferee Court practised along with the counsel for the respondents. Nevertheless, the District Court has assigned valid reasons and rejected the petitioners' applications for transfer. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these four Civil Revision Applications.

¶24

As rightly observed by the District Court, the recusal and transfer of any case from one judicial forum to another is a sensitive matter. I reckon it will suffice if I extract the District Judge's observations, at paras 3 & 4, in that regard :

¶25

“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.

¶26

In the case of Charu K.Mehta v. Chetan P. Mehta¹ , the Hon’ble High Court has held that merely on allegations, order of transfer shall not be made. Power of transfer of the case from one Court to another under Section 24 of CPC, is very wide, however, while exercising such powers, the Court itself must look into the ground taken for justifying transfer.”

¶27

12010 (2) Mh.L.J. 433

¶28

¶29

Cra no.2,3,4 & 5 of 2020 (F)

¶30

In John Patrick Liteky v. United States² , the US Supreme Court has observed that litigants often seek disqualification based upon a judge's prior participation, in a judicial capacity, in some related litigation. Those allegations are meritless in most instances, and their prompt rejection is important so the case can proceed. If faithful to their oath, judges approach every aspect of each case with a neutral and objective disposition. They understand their duty to render decisions upon a proper record and to disregard earlier judicial contacts with a case or party.

¶31

In fact, Liteky aptly summarises what the petitioners here had sought and what the learned District Judge justly rejected. So I see no reason to interfere with the District Judge's discretion in dismissing the transfer applications.

¶32

I, therefore, dismiss all the four Civil Revision Applications with no order as to costs.

¶33

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶34

¶35

NITI K Digitally signed by NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2021.02.16 10:30:50 +05'30'

¶36

2510 US 540 (1994), as quoted in Indore Development Authority (Recusal Matter 5) v. Manohar Lal , (2020) 6 SCC 304.

Vishnudas D. Sadhale., v. Vinayak P. Shinkre (Deceased) Thr. Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnudas D. Sadhale., v. Vinayak P. Shinkre (Deceased) Thr. Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roney Simoes, Rep. by His Const. Attorney, Florina Carmalina Pinto., Vs Vera D'Souza.

Shaikh Mohidin (Dec) Rep. by Lrs., Vs Octaviano Furtado (Dec) Rep. by Lrs. and Anr.

Antonio Olavo Menino Vaz @ Olavo Vaz and Anr., Vs Dr. Francisco Vaz and 11 Ors.

Sainath Bakers and Confectioners Prop, Concern of Priti Naik Shirodkar and 2 Ors. Vs the Edc Ltd.

Kashinath Tima Gaude and Anr., Vs Pradeep Vishnu Shinkre and 2 Ors.

Dattaprasad Shivanand Sawardekar., Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors.