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.
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 ...
Bernardo Silveira Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Gover ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the Secretary of Tourism and the Director of Tourism, Government of Goa, respectively. 3. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Clause 26 of the terms and conditions for erection of temporary shacks/decks/umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa for the tourist season 2011-12 is ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner invites the Court to read down Clause 26 of the said policy to interpret the words “criminal record” as conviction of a criminal offence. Lastly, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash an order dated 5th April, 2012, passed by respondent No.3, the Director of Tourism. 4. The petitioner had made an application dated 22nd September, 2011 for erection of a temporary shack for the tourist season 2011-12 (upto 31st May, 2012). The application was made in terms of the said policy. Clause 26 and the concluding portion thereof read ...
Eastern Star Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indranath Bagkar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 14 and Shri P. Shahapurkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.3 to 13. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pernem dated 26/07/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for police protection at Exhibit D-35 came to be rejected. 4. Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was forced to file the said application as the respondents have committed breach of the order of temporary injunction which has forced the petitioner to file contempt application and take other remedy in law to enforce the order of temporary injunction operating against the respondents. The learned Counsel furt...
State of Goa Vs. Dinesh Raikar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona in Criminal Case No. 41/S/07, acquitting the respondent of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation that on 24-05-2007 at 11:45 hours at Saleri, Cola, near fish market, the accused was driving the rickshaw bearing No. GA-02 U-1090 which was proceeding from Canacona to Cola side and on reaching at Saleri, Cola, drove the rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a pedestrian girl, Ms. Anisha Pagi, aged about 8 years who sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital; the accused ran away from the spot without giving first ...
Narayan Ganesh Gadekar Vs. Smt. Parvati Sagun Gadekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J. Lobo, learned Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pernem in Private Criminal Case No. 7/P/2007 acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. 3. The appellant is the original complainant who filed the above Criminal case alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C., on the ground that on 9.3.2006 the respondent/accused had filed a false report at Pernem Police Station alleging attempt to rape by the complainant. 4. After verification, substance of accusation was explained to the accused and the accused claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and examined Mr. Rajendra Kashalkar as PW2. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused in...
State of Goa Vs. Dinesh Raikar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona in Criminal Case No. 41/S/07, acquitting the respondent of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation that on 24-05-2007 at 11:45 hours at Saleri, Cola, near fish market, the accused was driving the rickshaw bearing No. GA-02 U-1090 which was proceeding from Canacona to Cola side and on reaching at Saleri, Cola, drove the rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a pedestrian girl, Ms. Anisha Pagi, aged about 8 years who sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital; the accused ran away from the spot without giving first ...
Rajaram M. Caisukar Vs. St. Joseph Chapel and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. The above petition challenges an order dated 4/04/2012 passed by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji in Stamp No.233/2012 whereby an application under Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner for leave to file the suit without statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected. 3. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that no urgent relief is sought against the Government. The learned Counsel has taken me through the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and pointed out that a statutory notice has to be served on the Government before filing the suit, whereas Section 80(2) only ...
YasIn K. Shaikh Vs. State (Through C.B.i., Bambolim, Goa) Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Special Case No.7/2009 to the extent learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). 4. The chargesheet was filed by CBI against the petitioner and two other accused who were working as Senior Manager and Officer of Canara Bank, Ponda Goa before the Special Judge for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. Learned Special Judge after hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor orde...
YasIn K. Shaikh Vs. State (Through C.B.i., Bambolim, Goa) Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Special Case No.7/2009 to the extent learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). 4. The chargesheet was filed by CBI against the petitioner and two other accused who were working as Senior Manager and Officer of Canara Bank, Ponda Goa before the Special Judge for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. Learned Special Judge after hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor orde...
State of Goa Vs. Mahesh Kasar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/11/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.102/06/D/C acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the appeal are as under: On 19/10/2005 at about 13.10 hours at Zuari, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17, the accused drove his Maruti Van bearing registration no.GA01-T-6603 in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Margao to Panaji and when he reached near Zuari bridge, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17 while attempting to overtake another vehicle, dashed against motorcycle bearing registration no.GA02-H-4458 driven by PW2 - Dipesh Shah causing grievous injuries to him. Both the accused and PW2 sustained injuries and they were taken to Goa Medical Coll...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »