Team Goemkarponn
MAPUSA: Surinder Kumar Khosla, who is also an accused in the Birch nightclub fire tragedy case, has retained his discharge in a separate criminal case relating to alleged manipulation of documents connected to Maizons Star Resort in Arpora. The North Goa Additional Sessions Court has refused to interfere with the trial court’s decision, dismissing a revision petition filed by M/s Maizons Coastline Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The legal battle centres on the management and control of Maizons Star Resort, a property developed by the company with 107 units in 13 blocks. The dispute can be traced to a March 23, 2004 agreement between the developers and Khosla concerning the transfer of rights in the project. At that stage, 83 units had been sold through a rent-back arrangement, while 24 remained with the developers.
Differences between the parties eventually escalated into multiple legal proceedings. Among the allegations raised by the company was that Khosla had relied on a fabricated letter dated April 30, 2004, suggesting that possession and management of the entire resort had been transferred to him from the following day. The company alleged that this document was subsequently used to obtain official clearances and create a misleading impression before government authorities.
The Mapusa Judicial Magistrate First Class had discharged Khosla on September 3, 2024, following preliminary proceedings. The developer subsequently approached the Sessions Court, questioning the magistrate’s assessment of the material and arguing that a handwriting examination had cast doubt on the signatures appearing on the disputed letter.
The Sessions Court, however, found that the company’s complaint itself faced questions of authorisation. During the proceedings, director Sunil Divkar acknowledged that no specific board resolution empowering a director to initiate the criminal case had been placed on record. Although fellow director Pradip Amonkar maintained that such approval existed, the company could not produce documentary proof of it.
The court reiterated that company directors must have proper board-level authority before initiating criminal action in the company’s name. It also declined to accept the forensic findings as evidence, since the expert responsible for preparing the report had not entered the witness box to establish its contents.
Another important consideration was the ongoing civil dispute between the parties. The Sessions Court agreed with the magistrate that the material presented did not sufficiently establish criminal wrongdoing requiring Khosla to face a trial.
Finding no legal defect in the September 2024 discharge order, the court dismissed the developer’s revision application. Khosla’s discharge in the case therefore continues to stand.
