Bombay High Court
Bank Of Maharashtra vs Zuari Estate Development And ... on 3 January, 2020
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
8 S 3144 OF 2002
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.3144 OF 2002
Bank of Maharashtra ... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Zuari Estate Development and
Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd ... Defendant
ALONGWITH
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.2 OF 2003
Zuari Estate Development &
Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd. ... Plaintiff.
Vs
Bank of Maharashtra ... Defendant.
Ms. Sneha Phene a/w Priyanka Pol i/by Little & Co. for the
plaintiff in Suit No.3144 of 2002 and for defendant in
Commercial Suit No.2 of 2003.
Mr. A. M. Vernekar a/w Mr. Suraj G. Ghogare, for
Defendant in Suit No.3144 of 2002 and for plaintiff in
Commercial Suit No.2 of 2003.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 3rd January, 2020.
P.C. :
1] The first witness Shivanand Chavan, (PW) is present in Court and is
administered oath
Name - : Shivanand Chavan
Age- : adult
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 09:16:55 :::
8 S 3144 OF 2002
r/o Salgaonkar Bhavan, Near Doordarshan Kendra, Althinho Panaji -Goa.
2] The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief dated 17 th October, 2018 is now shown to me. The affidavit is affirmed by me. The affidavit bears my signature. The contents of the affidavit are true and correct. The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief dated 17th October, 2018 is now marked as Exhibit P-1/1.
P.C. 3] The plaintiffs have tendered compilation of 18 documents. The defendant has made a statement of admission and denial of the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
4] The documents at Sr.Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16 and 17 are admitted in evidence. The documents at Sr. Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16 and 17 are marked as Exhibit P-1/2 to 10.
5] The existence of documents ar Sr.Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 18 is admitted. However, the correctness of contents thereof is denied. The documents at Sr.Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 18 are marked as Exhibit P-1/11 to 14, subject to proof of correctness thereof.
6] The document at Sr.No.3 being photo copy of the letter dated 14 th June, 1984 is marked as Exhibit P-1/15, for identification. 7] The document at Sr.No.6 is marked as Exhibit P-1/16 (in view of the 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 09:16:55 ::: 8 S 3144 OF 2002 averments in paragraph No.13 of the affidavit and the fact that the defendant has produced the said document at Sr.No.11 of it's compilation). 8] The document at Sr.No.12, which is letter dated 18 th November, 1997 is marked as Exhibit P-1/17 (in view of averments in para No.18 of the affidavit).
9] The document at Sr.No.13 is marked as Exhibit P-1/18 (in view of averments in para No.20 of the affidavit and the fact that the said document is produced at Sr. No.16 of defendant's compilation of documents). 10] The document at Sr.No.14 being a photostate copy of the letter dated 1st January, 1995 purported to be addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff is marked as Exhibit P-19 (in view of averments in para No.19 of the affidavit), subject to the objections regarding proof and contents of hand- written portion.
11] By consent, Mr. Chetan Shah is appointed as a Commissioner and is requested to record the cross-examination of the Plaintiff's first witness.
(a) The Commissioner is at liberty to exercise discretion under Order XVIII rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to note the demeanour of the witnesses where necessary.
(b) All cross-examination shall be conducted strictly in question and answer form.
3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 09:16:55 :::
8 S 3144 OF 2002
(c) The Commissioner will also be at liberty to direct that the whole or any part of the cross-examination should be video recorded for later reference of the Court. Should that be done, the original audio visual recording will be submitted along with the Commissioner's Report to the Registry.
(d) Liberty to the parties as also to the Commissioner to apply in case of difficulty.
(e) All re-examination will be conducted only in Court.
(f) Costs of the commission shall be borne equally by the parties.
(g) Parties shall also pay costs of Rs.500/- per hearing to the Court Clerk who attends the Commission with Court Papers. This is required since these clerks attend the commission in addition to their duties and outside their normal working hours.
(h) The Commissioner is not to permit any application for adjournment on dates previously fixed, except where absolutely unavoidable. Counsel's inconvenience or unavailability does not constitute such unavoidability.
12] List the matter on 21st February, 2020 for a status report including as to progress before the Commissioner.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 09:16:55 :::