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.
Narshiv Usapkar Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. R. Menezes, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28/07/2010 passed by the Children's Court in Special Case No.22/2009 convicting and sentencing the appellant/ accused of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506(ii) and 354 of I.P.C. read with Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short) as follows: SectionSentence452 of IPCSimple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default, Simple Imprisonment for one month.354 r/w S.8(2) of the ActSimple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 Lakh. In default, Simple Imprisonment for three months.506(ii) of IPCSimple Imprisonment for three months.An amount of Rs.50,000/- from the fine amount, if realised, has been ordered to be paid to the victim girl. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal...
Gaurav Gupta Vs. Radhika Gupta
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04/01/2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji dismissing Criminal Appeal No.113/2009 and partly allowing Criminal Appeal No.124/2009 against the judgment and order dated 04/08/2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.159/2009/A. 3. Criminal Appeal No.113/2009 was filed by the petitioner herein whereas Criminal Appeal No.124/2009 was filed by the respondent herein. The respondent had also filed Criminal Writ Petition No.27/2010 challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court, but the respondent had withdrawn the same. 4. The respondent herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.159/2009/A before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of ...
Miss Sudha Shamrao Parab, (Since Deceased) and Others Vs. Anant Vishnu ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri S. Chopdekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. 2. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 01.04.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pernem, in Regular Civil Suit no. 16/2000 whereby an application filed by the Respondent no.2 to frame an issue of tenancy came to be allowed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed a suit on the ground that they are owners in possession of a suit property surveyed under no. 205/1 of Dhargal Village, Pernem, and praying inter alia, for a permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the Respondent no.1 from selling/alienating/transferring the suit property in favour of the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and to direct the Respondent no.2 to demolish the illegal construction carried out by him in the suit property. 4. The Respondent no.2 filed the written statement, inter alia, claiming that an ar...
M/S. Landscape Developers Represented by Its Managing Director Mr. Dil ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Oral Judgment: All the above Appeals were taken up together for final hearing as learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties pointed out that the points of fact and law involved in the above appeals are identical and, according to the learned Counsel, all the above matters were always taken up together for hearing. 2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the substantial questions of law which arises in the present Appeals and by consent of the learned Counsel, the following two substantial questions of law are framed for the purpose of consideration: 1) Whether in the event under the Employees State Insurance Act of 1948, the dominant activity i.e. the construction activity is not covered, the activity incidental to the dominant activity i.e. of administration and sales would be covered under the Act? 2) Whether an Order under Section 45-A could be passed on the basis of the assumed wages in the circumstances in which the records are produced? 3. Shri G. Sardessa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›