- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Adv. Mrs. Arlene Lobo Petitioner v. Mr. Deepak Govekar And 3 Ors. S
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion was delivered by C.V. Bhadang, J. The petitioner is Mrs. Arlene Lobo, who appeared in person. She filed a petition purportedly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought, inter alia:
- Direction to respondent no. 1 (described as defendant no. 1) to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, identified as a remaining small part of an ancestral house;
- An injunction restraining respondent no. 1 from parting with possession of the disputed premises to a third party;
- A direction to respondent no. 1 to construct a boundary wall with a gate;
- An order directing respondent no. 1 to publish an unconditional apology to the petitioner and her daughter in the daily ‘Lokmat’;
- Other unspecified reliefs.
The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 1 had published defamatory material in the daily ‘Lokmat’ on 4 June 2015. Three respondents, all private parties, were arrayed in the petition. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553) to contend that disputed questions of fact may not necessarily preclude the writ court from exercising jurisdiction.
Procedural result stated in the opinion: the petition was dismissed while the merits of the controversy were kept open and the petitioner was given liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is a competent remedy to obtain reliefs of delivery of possession, injunctions, construction of a compound wall, and an order for publication of an apology when the dispute is between private parties.
- Whether the principle in ABL International Ltd. (that disputed questions of fact may not always prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction) makes the present petition competent before the writ court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner asserted that respondent no. 1 had published defamatory material in the daily 'Lokmat' on 4/06/2015.
- The petitioner relied on ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. ((2004) 3 SCC 553) to submit that even where disputed questions of fact exist, a writ court may, in an appropriate case, exercise jurisdiction; on that basis she contended the petition was competent and sought the reliefs described.
The opinion does not set out any specific arguments advanced by the respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 | That in an appropriate case the existence of disputed questions of fact may not deter a writ court from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227. | The petitioner relied upon this authority to argue that the writ petition was competent despite factual disputes. The Court considered the reliance but concluded that, on the facts as pleaded (a dispute between private parties seeking possession, injunctions, construction and an apology), the reliefs claimed were not competent before a writ court; accordingly the precedent did not persuade the Court to entertain the petition in the present form. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first reviewed the petition and the nature of the prayers sought. It observed that all three respondents are private parties and that the reliefs sought are essentially private-law remedies (delivery of possession, injunction, construction of a compound wall and an order to publish an apology).
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's decision in ABL International enabled the writ court to exercise jurisdiction even where disputed factual questions exist. The court acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on that authority but explained that, on the facts and as pleaded in the petition, the dispute was between private parties and the reliefs claimed were not appropriate remedies in writ jurisdiction.
On that basis the court held that the petition, as framed and filed, could not be entertained by the writ court. The opinion does not undertake a detailed merits analysis of the underlying factual or substantive disputes; rather, the reasoning is confined to the question of jurisdiction and competence of the forum.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
Direct effect: The petition is dismissed because the reliefs claimed are not competent in a writ petition between private parties. The petitioner was granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings (civil or other remedies) as may be permissible and advised; the court expressly kept the merits of the controversy open.
Broader implications: The opinion confines itself to the question of forum competence in the specific factual context and does not purport to lay down any new precedent. The court declined to apply the ABL principle to permit the writ in this particular case.
C.V Bhadang, J.:— Heard Mrs. Arlene Lobo, the petitioner who is appearing in person. By this petition, which is filed purportedly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is inter alia praying for a direction to the respondent no. 1 (who is described as defendant no. 1) to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, remaining small part of the ancestral house to the petitioner. The petitioner is also praying for an order of injunction against the respondent no. 1 from parting with possession of the disputed suit premises to a third party. There are also reliefs claimed directing the respondent no. 1 to construct a boundary wall with a gate. There are several other prayers including a prayer for direction to the respondent no. 1 to publish an unconditional apology to the petitioner (described as plaintiff) and her daughter in the daily ‘Lokmat’.
2. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, has submitted that the respondent no. 1 had managed to publish some defamatory material in the daily newspaper ‘Lokmat’ on 4/06/2015. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 in order to submit that in an appropriate case, the fact that the matter involves disputed questions of fact may not deter the writ Court from exercising jurisdiction. The petitioner submits that in that view of the matter, this Court may grant reliefs as prayed.
3. I have perused the petition and the nature of the prayers made which are set out herein above. In the petition, the petitioner has arrayed three respondents, all of whom are private parties. However, the petitioner insisted that on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. (supra), the petition would be competent. On hearing the petitioner in person, I do not find that the petition as is framed and filed can be entertained. The dispute appears to be between private parties and the reliefs claimed are in the nature of delivery of possession, injunction, construction of a compound wall and a direction to the respondent no. 1 to publish unconditional apology in the daily ‘Lokmat’. In such circumstances, the reliefs are not competent before a writ Court.
4. In such circumstances, the petition is hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that the petitioner would be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings as may be permissible and if so advised. The merits of the controversy is obviously kept open.
Alert