Court : Mumbai Goa
This common judgment shall dispose of all the above Criminal Appeals. 2. The Collem police had filed charge-sheet against 18 accused persons (respondents) for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 120-B, 451, 427, 435, 436, 506(II) r/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), which had culminated into Sessions Case no. 9/2006, disposed of by the learned Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Margao. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, was as follows: On 19/4/2004, between 14.30 hours to 17.00 hours at Jungle Cafe, Bazarwada, Collem, the accused persons and other villagers of Collem hatched a criminal conspiracy and with their common intention formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object pelted stones at the complainant, Shri Joseph Barreto and his labourers, damaged the fencing, criminally trespassed into his property and set fire to his store room, huts, Scorpio jeep bearing registration no. GA-01-S-3913 and other articl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Court dated 25.10.2012 whereby an application filed by the respondents under Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 for extension of time came to be partly allowed and the period was extended for a period of 90 days. 5. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that this Court by order dated 15.10.2012 had remanded the matter to the learned Special Judge to decide the extension as prayed by the respondents afresh in accordance with the material as available as on 01.09.2012 after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Shri S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Shirin Naik, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1. None for the other respondents, though served. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and order dated 03/07/2004 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2000 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09/03/2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.15/1974 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, has been dismissed. 3. The appellants and respondents no.2 and 3 are the legal representatives of Basu Dipu Naik against whom respondent no.1 filed the above suit seeking declaration that lease deed executed by the plaintiffs with said Basu Dipu Naik on 06/11/1966 had expired. The plaintiffs also claimed damages and mesne-profits. The suit was contested by said Basu Dipu Naik, who died during pendency of the suit. Thereafter, the legal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though served. 2. By order dated 30/08/2012 passed by this Court, the parties were put on notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. When the matter was called out on 23/10/2012, respondents did not choose to put in appearance. Hence, the matter was adjourned to give an opportunity to the respondents to put in appearance. 4. When the matter is called out today, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Hence, Rule. Heard forthwith. 5. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31/07/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.71/2009/A by which respondent no.3/ defendant no.3 has been permitted to file additional written statement. By application dated 21/01/2012, the plaintiffs requested learned trial Court to discard the additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner alleges that he is the tenant of the land sought to be acquired. The landlord, the Comunidade of Mapusa and another party who also alleges to be the tenant of the land, have not challenged the acquisition. 2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government of Goa and The Bardez Bazar Consumer Cooperative Society (hereinafter, referred to as the Society), respectively. 3. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash notifications dated 7th April, 1999 and 7th February, 2000 issued under the Land Acquisition Act and an Award dated 12th January, 2001. The petitioner has also sought restoration of possession in the event of it being found that the possession was in fact taken. 4. The respondents raised two preliminary objections. Although we heard the matter on two other issues as well, we are of the opinion that one of the preliminary objections is well founded and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Respondents no. 2 and 3 are the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'HPCL') and its Senior Regional Manager. Respondent no.4 is one Smt. Rajashri Vijay Sawardekar who has been held to be the successful tenderer. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a merit list and the selection process for a Retail Outlet Dealership and a letter of intent dated 19/08/2011 issued by respondent no.2 for the proposed Retail Outlet Dealership in favour of respondent no.4. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to undertake the process of selection for the said dealership afresh from amongst the eligible candidates. The petitioner has sought the reassessment / revaluation of the marks allocated to him under the criteria 'Liquid cash in the form of bank Fixed Deposit etc.' under the heading 'capability to arrange the finance'. 2. There is absolutely no doubt that justice and equity are in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. S. Shet, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 4 and 5. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 21.9.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 155/S/09/I Addl. By which evidence of Sabina D'Costa, the petitioner i.e PW1 who had lodged FIR was closed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that Criminal Case No. 155/S/09/I Addl. was fixed for recording further evidence of first informant i.e of the petitioner on 21.9.2010 and learned Public prosecutor as well as Advocate Monteiro who was assisting the prosecution in the said case, requested learned Magistrate to keep the matter back since the petitioner could not remain present in time since her mother was suffering from medical ailment. According to the petitioner, she was to go to the Court late on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 2/07/2001 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.227/1993 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') was partly allowed and the appellants were directed to pay compensation to the respondent for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre besides a sum of Rs.10/- per square metre towards the severance charges in respect of an area of 35 square metres of land. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the said Act, the appellants acquired land belonging to the respondents admeasuring an area of 210 square metres from survey no.109/3; 65 square metres from sur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : Heard Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 5. 2. The above appeals challenge the common judgment passed by the learned Reference Court dated 21/03/2002 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos.31/1991, 32/1991 and 33/1991. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the land was acquired for the purpose of road widening from Bethora to Nirankar in Ponda Taluka, having an area of 875 square metres from the property under survey no.234 (part), an area of 480 square metres from the property surveyed under no.235(part) and an area of 235 square metres from the property surveyed under no.240 (part) of the village of Ponda. In view of the dispute between the parties a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule in both the writ petitions. With the consent of the parties, the Rule in both the writ petitions is made returnable and heard forthwith. The parties agreed that the result in Writ Petition No.170/2011 follows the result in Writ Petition No.460/2011. 2. Respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions is the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer. The other respondents in both the writ petitions are private parties. 3. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties have lapsed and cannot be proceeded with; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke/cancel the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; to refrain from acquiring the properties and a writ of certiorari, quashing the said notifications and a report dated 28th October, 2010 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. We intend disposing of these writ petitions only on the ground that the report of...
Tag this Judgment!