Ramnath Kare and Another Vs. State Represented by Mr. Vivek Marathe, Inspector of Factories

Ramnath Kare and Another vs State Represented by Mr. Vivek Marathe, Inspector of Factories

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Goa Decided Feb 06, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1105021

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1105021
Court: Mumbai Goa High Court
Judge: F.M. Reis
Decided On: Feb 06, 2013
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.31 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramnath Kare and Another

Respondent

State Represented by Mr. Vivek Marathe, Inspector of Factories

Excerpt

.....learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent has also raised objection to the consideration of the documents produced by the petitioners during the course of the disposal of the revision petition. whether such documents can be considered or not would have to be reassessed by the learned judge after hearing all the parties in accordance with law. 5. without going into the merits of the rival contentions and for the reasons recorded in the order dated 29/03/2012 in criminal writ petition no.13 of 2012 the matter is remanded to the revisional court to decide the revision afresh. the revisional court will decide the matter independently without being influenced with any of the findings in the impugned order. 6. in view of the above, i pass the following order:order (i) the impugned order dated 11/07/2011 passed in criminal revision application no.63 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. (ii) criminal revision application no.63/2010 is restored to the file of the learned additional sessions judge, south goa, margao. (iii) the learned additional sessions judge is directed to decide the said revision application afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv) all contentions on merits of both the parties are left open. (v) rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vi) the petition stands disposed of accordingly. (vii) the parties are directed to appear before the revisional court on 1/04/2013 at 10.00 a.m.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

Heard Shri G.K. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.

3. The above petition challenges an order dated 11/07/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao disposing of Criminal Revision Application No.63/2010.

4. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that in similar circumstances this Court by order dated 29/03/2012 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.13/2012 has remanded the matter to the learned Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has also raised objection to the consideration of the documents produced by the petitioners during the course of the disposal of the revision petition. Whether such documents can be considered or not would have to be reassessed by the learned Judge after hearing all the parties in accordance with law.

5. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions and for the reasons recorded in the order dated 29/03/2012 in Criminal Writ Petition No.13 of 2012 the matter is remanded to the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. The Revisional Court will decide the matter independently without being influenced with any of the findings in the impugned order.

6. In view of the above, I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 11/07/2011 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.63 of 2010 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) Criminal Revision Application No.63/2010 is restored to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao.

(iii) The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the said revision application afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

(iv) All contentions on merits of both the parties are left open.

(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(vi) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 1/04/2013 at 10.00 a.m.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Goa · 2013 Same Parties Ramnath Kare and Another vs State Represented by Mr. Vivek Ma... Same Subject Education Same Judge F.M. Reis