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.
Smt. Shakina Bi and Others Vs. Anandrao G.S. Kenkre and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges the judgment passed by the Development Commissioner/Secretary (Revenue) dated 3/11/2008 whereby an application dated 15/10/2003 filed by the respondents was upheld and the order dated 10/11/1986 passed by the learned Aval Karkun attached to the office of the Mamlatdar of Sanguem in case No.D.C. No.182/Cotarlim and Order dated 16/09/1993 passed by the learned Deputy Collector in case No.LRC/APPL/208/AC dated 24/06/2003 passed by the Additional Collector II in case No.19-93-LRC/2nd/APL/AC dated 24/06/2003 was set aside. The names of the petitioners were ordered to be deleted from the Record of Rights and the name of the deceased heir of the respondents namely Kashinath Shaba Sinai Salelkar was directed to be included in the Record of Rights in respect of survey no.6/0 of the village of Cotarlim in Sangue...
Menino Pereira Vs. Pramod Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Timble, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. T. Pereira, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 08/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Criminal Case No.1779/OA/NIA/06/B by which respondent no.1/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The appellant herein filed the above case against respondent no.1 for dishonour of cheque dated 25/09/2006 alleged to have been issued by respondent no.1/accused for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only). 3. In Criminal Case No.1779/OA/NIA/06/B, the complainant examined three witnesses namely PW1-Revard Pereira- brother and the constituted attorney holder of the complainant, PW2-Kishor Pednekar and PW3-Somappa Kollar. Ther...
Smt. Shakina Bi and Others Vs. Anandrao G.S. Kenkre and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges the judgment passed by the Development Commissioner/Secretary (Revenue) dated 3/11/2008 whereby an application dated 15/10/2003 filed by the respondents was upheld and the order dated 10/11/1986 passed by the learned Aval Karkun attached to the office of the Mamlatdar of Sanguem in case No.D.C. No.182/Cotarlim and Order dated 16/09/1993 passed by the learned Deputy Collector in case No.LRC/APPL/208/AC dated 24/06/2003 passed by the Additional Collector II in case No.19-93-LRC/2nd/APL/AC dated 24/06/2003 was set aside. The names of the petitioners were ordered to be deleted from the Record of Rights and the name of the deceased heir of the respondents namely Kashinath Shaba Sinai Salelkar was directed to be included in the Record of Rights in respect of survey no.6/0 of the village of Cotarlim in Sangue...
Menino Pereira Vs. Pramod Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Timble, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. T. Pereira, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 08/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Criminal Case No.1779/OA/NIA/06/B by which respondent no.1/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The appellant herein filed the above case against respondent no.1 for dishonour of cheque dated 25/09/2006 alleged to have been issued by respondent no.1/accused for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only). 3. In Criminal Case No.1779/OA/NIA/06/B, the complainant examined three witnesses namely PW1-Revard Pereira- brother and the constituted attorney holder of the complainant, PW2-Kishor Pednekar and PW3-Somappa Kollar. Ther...
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...
Gangaram Balchandra Bandodkar, Saidham Co-operative Housing Society Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to initiate action against the allegedly illegal construction/hill cutting activity carried out by respondent No. 6 and a direction commanding respondent No. 6 to forthwith stop all activities including development, felling of trees, levelling of land, carrying out any construction activity etc. in the property at survey No. 216/1. 2. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are the Collector, North Goa, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, the State of Goa, the Tree Officer, Deputy Conservator of Forests and one Pradeep Kamat respectively. 3. By an order dated 26th June 2008, this Court recorded a statement made on behalf of respondents No. 6 that he had applied for conversion of the land in question and that the application was pending. An undertaking was given on behalf of respondent No. 6 that he would not carry out any construction activity without seeking permission from this Court after all the per...
Goa Foundation Vs. Goa State Pollution Control Board Through Its Membe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner has filed an affidavit today, the contents of which indicate that their grievances stand redressed, at least, at this stage. The affidavit is taken on record. 3. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 29th November, 2011 which revoked an order dated 4th October, 2011, suspending the consents to operate issued in favour of respondent No.5. 4. The petitioner stated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed today that the consents to operate issued to respondent No.5 under certain enactments expired on 31st July, 2012 and the consents have not been renewed. In view thereof, as stated earlier, the petitioner's grievances stand redressed and, in any event, do not survive at this stage. Needless to add, this is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, including respondent No.5 which has applied for renewal of the consents. 5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitione...
M/S. Landmark Builders and Developers Vs. Lourdes Xavier Zuzarte and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Salkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Shri Salkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 waives service. The notice was issued to the respondents that the above petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. None appears for the remaining respondents. 3. The short point for consideration in the above petition is that an application filed by the petitioner for modification of an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panjim by order dated 9/01/2012 whereby the learned Judge inter alia directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lacs only) before the Court be modified to the extent that instead of depositing the amount the petitioner would furnish a Bank Guarantee for the said amount came to be dismisse...
Gangaram Balchandra Bandodkar, Saidham Co-operative Housing Society Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to initiate action against the allegedly illegal construction/hill cutting activity carried out by respondent No. 6 and a direction commanding respondent No. 6 to forthwith stop all activities including development, felling of trees, levelling of land, carrying out any construction activity etc. in the property at survey No. 216/1. 2. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are the Collector, North Goa, the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, the State of Goa, the Tree Officer, Deputy Conservator of Forests and one Pradeep Kamat respectively. 3. By an order dated 26th June 2008, this Court recorded a statement made on behalf of respondents No. 6 that he had applied for conversion of the land in question and that the application was pending. An undertaking was given on behalf of respondent No. 6 that he would not carry out any construction activity without seeking permission from this Court after all the per...
Ramnath Bablo Umeraskar Vs. John Carasco (Since Deceased), Represented ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the Authorities below whereby an application for registration as a mundkar filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application for registration of a mundkar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is occupying the dwelling house existing in the property belonging to the respondents from the year 1970 with a fixed habitation. It is further his case that they have been occupying the suit premises with the consent of the bhatkar/respondents. 4. The respondents disputed their claim and contended inter alia that the petitioner is the tenant of the suit premises. The learned Mamlatdar after holding an inquiry and recording ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »