Mumbai Goa Court October 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
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...
Dinesh Narayan Shet S/O Narayan Shet Vs. Ms. Geeta Gurudas Chari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment Heard Mr. T. Pereira, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco da Gama in Criminal Case no. 62/OA/NIA/2009/B, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the complainant in the above case. It is the case of the complainant that the accused approached the complainant to provide financial assistance as the accused was in urgent need of some amount. The complainant knew the accused for last six years. The complainant provided advance of Rs.28,800/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand eight hundred only) to the accused which she promised to return within two months. The accused issued post dated cheque dated 2.4.2009 drawn on HDFC, Bank Porvorim. The cheque was dishonoured for...
M/S Alcon Constructions Represented by Its Partner Victor Albuquerque ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. Palekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. A. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By consent, an additional substantial question of law is framed: Whether the findings of the ESI Court to club the employees of the appellant with M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., was justified as the parties do not agree with any issue on that count before the learned Tribunal? 3. With regard to the first substantial question of law framed by this Court relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004(5) Bom.C.R. 537 in the case of GauriMohan Pohoomul V/s Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation and another, and for the reasons stated therein, it is held that for the purpose of deciding the coverage the employees who were working in the head office of the construction company can be included. 4. With regard to the second substantial question of law, during the course of the hearing of th...
State Vs. Romil Chaudhary and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to order dated 17/09/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No.30/2010 discharging respondents no.1 and 2 who are the accused nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.30/2010. 3. Revision Petition against respondent no.1 stands dismissed in view of the order dated 13/07/2011 passed by this Court. 4. Chargesheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the respondents no.1 to 3 and absconding accused no.4 alleging that prior to 18/05/2010, four accused conspired to kill deceased Bilma Colaco on account of broken love affair between the deceased and the accused no.4 and that an illegal weapon of gun (Katta) was arranged by the accused nos. 1 to 3 and that on 18/05/2010 at about 8 p.m. at Cuncolim, the accused no.4 used the said weapon to cause death of t...
Sahajanand Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Public ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. R. Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for petitioner, Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 in all the petitions. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By these Writ Petitions, the petitioner takes exception to the part of the orders dated 22.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 by which the respondent no.1 herein has been directed to give notice of 48 hours in case crime is registered against respondent no.2. 4. On 18.4.2012, the petitioner herein lodged report at Panaji Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against respondent no.2 in all the Writ Petitions. Apprehending arrest, respondent no.2 in each of these Writ Petitions filed Anticipatory Bail Applications No.156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 bef...
Nilconta Gangadhar Sinai Amonkar, S/O Late Gangadhar Amonkar Vs. Vivek ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Quepem, in Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2006 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for appointment of a commissioner/officer for examining the petitioner by tendering an affidavit in evidence and to admit the documents in evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 and Order 26 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code at Exhibit 40 came to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed an application on the ground that the petitioner is more than 87 years old and has undertaken two by-pass surgeries and at present he is confined to his house at Cacora Curchorem, Goa and his movements are totally restricted. It is furth...
Mrs. Rosy Fernandes Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary of T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Mr. P. Dangui, the learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the Department of Tourism, Government of Goa and Village Panchayat of Calangute. 4. The petition is filed purportedly as a public interest litigation. The main grievance however relates to the petitioner's personal interest. It is therefore strictly not a public interest litigation. 5. The petitioner contends that the clauses 2, 20, 25, 26 and 32 of the terms and conditions for the grant of permission for erection of temporary shacks/deck-beds/ umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa for the tourist season of 2012-2013 (October, 2012 to 31st May, 2013) are unconstitutional. The petitioner also seeks an order directing respondent no.1 to implement her suggestions stated in the writ petition. 6. The petitioner has generally alleged that the terms and conditions are likely only to ...
Bramhanand M. Desai Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer, Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment:- (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the State of Goa, Goa Public Service Commission and one U.L. Salunke, Executive Engineer (Civil), Electricity Department respectively. The petitioner has sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th February, 2005, by which respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department. The petitioner has also sought a writ directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to hold a fresh DPC and consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post in accordance with law with effect from 11th February, 2005. 2. It is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner. This petition can be disposed of on one ground alone. It is agreed that the said post is a promotional post; that prior to the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were Assistant Engineers and that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were entitled to be conside...
Bramhanand M. Desai Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer, Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment:- (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the State of Goa, Goa Public Service Commission and one U.L. Salunke, Executive Engineer (Civil), Electricity Department respectively. The petitioner has sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th February, 2005, by which respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department. The petitioner has also sought a writ directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to hold a fresh DPC and consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post in accordance with law with effect from 11th February, 2005. 2. It is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner. This petition can be disposed of on one ground alone. It is agreed that the said post is a promotional post; that prior to the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were Assistant Engineers and that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were entitled to be conside...
Mrs. NatalIn Araujo Fernandes, Alias NatalIn Fernandes (Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 waives service. 3. The above Petition challenge the Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, dated 12.09.2012, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code to rely upon some additional documents, came to be rejected. 4. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the documents which are sought to be produced are public documents and, according to him, the learned Judge was not justified to come to the conclusion that such documents could be manufactured. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the documents which are sought to be produced are material to consider...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »