Mumbai Goa Court October 2012 Judgments
Mrs. Rita Lena D'Souza, W/o Menino Abel D'Souza Vs. State, through C.B ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Rule. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The petitioner who is the accused no.2 in Special Case No.5/2005 pending before the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, has challenged the order dated 6/4/2011 by which charge has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The respondent has filed charged sheet against the petitioner and her husband Menino Abel D'Souza for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has ordered framing of charge against both the accused. The order has become final against accused no.1 who has chosen not to challenge the same. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that volu...
Tag this Judgment!John Philip Pereira Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. Respondents No.2 to 7 are the Air Port Authority of India, Union Ministry for Civil Aviation, the Mormugao Planning and Development Authority, the Flag Officer Commanding of Goa Naval Area, the Collector, South Goa, Margao and the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent Nos.8(a) to 8(s) and (s-1) to (s-37) are the owners of the property which is the subject-matter of this petition. Respondent Nos.9 and 10 are Saroj Real Estate Developers and one Aniruddh Mehta who carries on business in the firm name and style of M/s. Umya Builder and Developers as the sole proprietor thereof. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing a notification dated 16th March, 2011 under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 withdrawing from acquisition the land which is the subject-matter of this petition and an order quashing the entire decision making process taken on 14th February, 2011 and 9th March...
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Karmali and Others Vs. State Through P.i. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
F.M. Reis, J. Heard Shri S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent nos.1 and 3 and Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petitions are taken up together for hearing as the Counsel appearing for the respective parties point out that the points involved in all the petitions are common and are in connection with the same complaint lodged by the respondent no.2. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent no.1 jointly against all the petitioners in the above petitions on 8/02/2006 stating inter alia that they are Mining Lessees of a mine known as Cuddegalivoril Soddo and that the petitioners had hatched a conspiracy and fraudulently obtained an...
Tag this Judgment!Conceicao Fernandes, Son of Late Joao Jose Fernandes and Others Vs. As ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 34/2002 whereby an application filed by the petitioners under Section 16(3) read with Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 came to be dismissed. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Special Civil Suit No. 252/2000 was filed by the petitioners in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, in view of an attempt by the respondents for laying of 33 KV line across the property belonging to the petitioners surveyed under nos. 77/1 and 84/1 of village Velim Goa. Along wi...
Tag this Judgment!Gaddu Zaraunkar Vs. Village Panchayat of Velim Through the Sarpanch/Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, waives service. 3. The short point which comes for consideration in the above Writ Petitioners is as to whether the Revisional Court whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 201-B of the Panchayat Raj Act, is bound to scrutinize every material on record while deciding a revision preferred in terms of the provisions of the said Act. 4. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has raised a serious grievance to the effect that the dispute before the Revisional Court was whether the disputed structures has been recently constructed or whether such constructions was existing at a much prior date and whether they were duly sanctioned by the Village Panchayat. It is the contention of Shri Usga...
Tag this Judgment!The Additional Deputy Collector Vs. Mrs. Patricia Annie Mendonca
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent, though served. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and award dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji in the Land Acquisition Case No. 84/2003 by which the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been partly allowed. 3. Vide notification dated 24.9.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in the official gazette dated 28.5.1992, the Government of Goa notified its intention to acquire the land admeasuring 1040 square metres of survey no.88/9 of Parra village belonging to the respondent for extension of the Government Primary School building at Parra. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.30/-...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Deogiri Transport, Represented by Its Power of Attorney, Prakash ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. P. S. Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco da Gama in Criminal Case no. 551/NIA/2008/D by which respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the original complainant. The complainant filed the above case through power of attorney holder Shri Prakash Sutar alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. According to the complainant, the accused had engaged services of the complainant for transporting iron ore since 2006 from M/s. Zeenath Transport Company Mines, Hospet to M/s. Sesa Industries Limited, Goa and while returning the complainant was transporting Met-coke for the accused from Mormugao Port Trust Harbour, V...
Tag this Judgment!M/S South Konkan Distillery and Another Vs. Santosh Prabhakar Naik and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Since respondent no.1 was the only the contesting party, notice was issued only to respondent no.1 for final disposal. Inspite of service, respondent no.1 has chosen not to put in appearance. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge orders dated 7.6.2011 and 19.1.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 178/1994/III(O)/Regular Civil Suit No. 612/2010/III(N) by which the application filed by respondent no.1 under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C. has been allowed and the application seeking review of the order dated 7.6.2011 has been dismissed. 4. The petitioners are defendants nos. 1 and 4 in the above suit filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 5 seeking recovery of money. 5. On 28.10.2010, the plaintiff filed an application seeking direction against defendant...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Mineral Enterprises Pvt. Limited Company Vs. Nilconta G. Amonkar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, dated 26.07.2006, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 13/2005, whereby an Appeal preferred by the Respondents challenging the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge, dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, came to be allowed and the defence of the Petitioners was struck down. 3. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has raised a grievance as far as the impugned Order is concerned essentially on the short ground that the learned Appellate Court has proceeded to hold that once there is a breach of an Order, the consequences of striking of the defence under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was mandatory. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-corruption Branc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 01/09/2012 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.28/12 extending time by 90 days to file chargesheet in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S.Act ('the Act' for short). 4. The petitioner was arrested on 06/03/2012 in Case No.RC3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa pursuant to handing over of the investigation by State of Goa to CBI in connection with Crime No.5/2010 registered at Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Goa. On 23/08/2012, the Investigating Officer filed an application purporting to be under Section 36-A(4) of the Act seeking time to file chargesheet. Thereafter, on 01/09/2012, learned Public Prosecutor filed report in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the Act and after hearing t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »