Mumbai Goa Court December 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.
Daulatrao V. Rane Sardessai and Others Vs. the State of Goa Through th ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Both the Writ Petitions involve the same questions and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. There is one petitioner in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2012 and there are two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 616 of 2012. We will refer to the facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 616 of 2012. 2. The petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside a decision of the Government of Goa, taken in its 'Cabinet Meeting' held on 23rd May, 2012 (in Agenda Item No.18), not to accept the recommendations of Respondent No.2 Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC) in regard to the selection to 9 (nine) vacancies to the post of 'Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service'. The petitioners have also sought a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the said recommendations of GPSC pursuant to advertisement No. 2 of 2011 as modified by advertisement No. 4 of 2011. 3. By the said advertisement No. 2 of 2011 issued on 11th February, 2011, the GPSC invited ap...
Antonio S. Coutinho Pereira Vs. the State of Goa (Through the Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1, 4, 7 and 8. None appears on behalf of the other respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner had sought the following reliefs : (a) a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to give adequate protection to the petitioner, his caretakers, property Boroda Molios and the buildings situate within the compound, namely the house, chapel, residence meant for the priest, outhouses, garages, etc. and the fish pond in the property Hortabhat/ Batio next to Boroda Molios by Police other than Bicholim Police. (b) an order directing the CBI to investigate into the offences complained of by the petitioner in various complaints lodged by the petitioner to the Goa Police and referred to in the petition. (c) for an order dir...
Dattaram Gawas Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the conditions imposed by the respondent no.2 while disposing of the application for furlough on 10.09.2012 whereby in condition no.1 of the said order, the applicant has been directed to furnish a personal bond in Form II for Rs.1,00,000/- and produce one surety in like amount. 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the applicant is not in a position to furnish such security. The learned Counsel points out in the facts and circumstances of the case that the security amount be accordingly reduced. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents points out that the inves...
Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs. Ramakant Mahadev Sawant and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Ms. Mathkar for the applicant, Mr. Pangam for respondent No.1 and Mr. adkarni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji by order dated 23rd August, 2012. The applicant has also sought further relief to the extent of holding an inquiry against the learned Sessions Judge for not disposing of the matter expeditiously. 4. Since the issue regarding delay in disposal of the anticipatory bail was raised in the application, we deemed it appropriate to take up the matter although the application seeking only cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail would lie before learned Single Judge in terms of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. Moreover, learned Single Judge before whom the matter was placed, ordered that the same be placed before Division Bench. Even Mr. Pangam...
Vaman Nakul Shetty Vs. Vasudev Tukaaram Sawant Amonkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to judgment and decree dated 23/06/2004 passed by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.156/2003 by which the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 02/12/2003 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.140/2001/C has been reversed. 3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. 4. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. The original plaintiff filed the above suit for eviction of the defendant from the shop existing in the property 'Rimtolembata' situated at Acquem Alto, on the ground floor which according to the plaintiff, was given on leave and licence basis to the defendant in terms of agreement styled as Leave and Licence agreement...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Deputy Collec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals as they are filed against the judgment and award dated 30/04/2007 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge (2), Fast Track Court II, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 52 of 2004. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the Land Acquisition Case No. 52 of 2004. 3. Facts giving rise to both the appeals, in short, are as follows: Vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in the Official Gazette dated 02/03/2000, land at Margao was acquired for construction of proposed ring road from Damodar College to Railway Gate on NH-17. This included land admeasuring 320 square meters from Chalta no. 219 of P.T. sheet no. 237; 250 square meters from Chalta no. 220 (part) of P.T. Sheet no. 237; 120 square meters from Chalta no. 229 of PT Sheet no. 237; 75 ...
M/S Passive Active Tourism Vs. Indian Railways, Through their Senior S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. A. R. Kantak along with Ms. Rajas Kantak, learned Advocates appearing for the appellant and Mr. I. Agha, learned Central Government Sanding Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. None for the other respondents though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 in Civil Suit No. 138/2004 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge (2), FTC-II, South Goa, Margao, whereby the counter claim filed by the respondent no.4 was partly decreed and appellant were directed to shift/remove the temporary sheds situated in survey no.58/11 of Village Collem, which are situated within 30 metres of the Railway Land within two months or within the period further extended by the Railway Department unless the appellant obtains the permission from the Railway Department to construct/maintain the said sheds within 30 metres of the said land. The suit came to be filed by the appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction on the ground that th...
Vinod Arlekar Vs. Yesh A. Arlekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31/07/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.77/2011 and the order dated 20/09/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco in Maintenance Application No.4/2010/C. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 claiming to be the son of the petitioner filed proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that the respondent...
State (Vasco Police Station) and Others Vs. Ryan Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
The confirmation case and all the above criminal appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since they arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 15/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them as below :Accused No.Name of the accusedSentences imposed on the accused1.Ryan FernandesDeath penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and if recovered, the same shall be paid to PW.54 Sarika and PW.57 Jaimini and other daughter as compensation in accordance with Section 357, Cr.P.C.;Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC; Death penalty for the offence under Section 120 B, IPC and to pay a fine...
The Goa Port and Dock Workers Organisation Through It's President Shri ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.D. Naik, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent s no. 2, 3 and 4. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 22/6/2012 issued by respondent no.2 on behalf of respondent no.2 by which respondent No. 4 has refused to refer the dispute arisen between the parties for adjudication. 4. According to the petitioner, some of members of the petitioner's organization, were illegally terminated by respondent no.1 vide communication dated 09/02/2011. The petitioner raised dispute. Thereafter, Conciliation Proceedings were held between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 by Conciliation Officer under section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947('the Act', for short). The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to respondent no.4 on 20/10/2011. By communicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »