Bombay High Court

JOSEPH DE SOUZA AND 2 ORS.,versusEDC LTD. AND ANR.,

Disposal: Withdrawn
Bench: VALMIKI MENEZES

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable because an alternate remedy of appeal exists, and it may be withdrawn.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging a decision of EDC Ltd. The Court observed that an appeal under sub‑section 9 of section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is available, making the writ petition non‑maintainable. The petitioners sought to withdraw the petition and indicated they would file the appeal with a condonation of delay application. The respondents argued that the appeal would be time‑barred. The Court allowed the withdrawal, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, and directed the petitioners to pursue the appeal.

Issues considered

Is the writ petition maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal under S.32(9) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is available?
Is the appeal that the petitioners intend to file time‑barred?

Legislation cited

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — s. 32(9)

Subjects

writ petition
alternate remedy
maintainability
appeal
condonation of delay
State Financial Corporations Act

Judgment

                                    8 WP 208 2019

     Sonam

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                    WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 2019

JOSEPH DE SOUZA AND 2 ORS.,                              ... PETITIONERS
  Versus
EDC LTD. AND ANR.,                                       ... RESPONDENTS


Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vishnuprasad A. Lawande with Ms. Smita Gawas, Advocates for
Respondent No.1.


                     CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
                     DATED :- 17th February, 2026

P.C.:


1.    Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.


2.      There is an alternate remedy of Appeal under Sub Section 9 of
Section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Since there
is an alternate remedy of Appeal provided, this Petition would not be
maintainable. At this stage, on instructions, the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition, stating that an Appeal
would be filed.


3.      Learned Advocate Mr. Lawande, appearing for Respondent No.1,
submits that the Appeal would be time-barred.


                                      Page 1 of 2
                                   17th February, 2026
                                 8 WP 208 2019




4.   Considering that there is an alternate remedy available of Appeal,
the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The Writ Petition stands
dismissed as withdrawn. The Petitioner records that the Appeal would
be filed with an application for condonation of delay.



                                            VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                    Page 2 of 2
                                 17th February, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…