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.
Narayan G. Gadekar S/O Late Shr Ganesh Gadekar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. Shet, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent, waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., at Pernem, in Criminal Case No.76/S/2010, whereby an application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., came to dismissed. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that on account of inadvertence of the Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, some contradictions which had to be put to two witnesses namely Pw.2, Usha Gadekar and Pw.5, Dattaram Raut, were not put to such witnesses. Learned Counsel further pointed out that without putting such contradictions, the case of the Petitioners would be gravely jeopardised. Learned Counsel further pointed out that ...
Brissa Owners Association and Others Vs. Egdar Daniel Monteiro and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.55/2010 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code whereby the petitioners inter alia have been restrained from disrupting or disconnecting or in any way interfering with the water connection to the suit flat occupied by the respondents. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the records reveal that a suit came to be filed by the respondents before the learned Adhoc District Judge at Panaji being Civil Suit No.55/2010 inter alia for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of money and consequential reliefs along with an application for temporary injunction. It is not in dispute that...
Kashinath Shetye Vs. the Public Information Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Leave to amend forthwith. 2. Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri E. Afonso, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 11/09/2008 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 8/04/2009 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the information sought by the petitioner at Serial No.3 in the application dated 7/07/2008 came to be rejected. 4. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that respondent no.3 whilst passing the impugned order has misread the provisions of Section 6 subsection 2 of the Right to Information Act in holding that the petitioner has to give reasons as to why such information was required from the Authorities. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the second Appellate Authority and pointed out that the respondent no.3 has erroneously found that...
M/S. Enpee Earthmovers and Others Vs. M/S.Resources International and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of all the above Criminal Appeals as they pertain to bouncing of cheques issued in relation to the same transaction. 2. Criminal Appeals No. 6 of 2010; 7 of 2010; 9 of 2010 7 and 10 of 2010 have been preferred against the judgments/orders dated 30/9/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda in Criminal Cases No. 35/OA/99/A; 34/OA/99/A; 39/OA/99/A; and 45/OA/99/A, respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment/order dated 29/9/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 254/OA/99/C. Vide the said judgments, impugned in the present appeals, the Complaints filed by the appellant against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (N.I. Act, for short) were all dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause titles of the impugned judgment...
State (Through P.i. Curchorem Police Station) Vs. Deepak Gaonkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Case No. 3/S/2009. 2. The said Criminal Case was culmination of a charge sheet filed by Curchorem Police Station against the respondent (accused) alleging that on 22/04/2008 at 11.30 hours at Ambeudak Sanvordem, the respondent drove a Tipper Truck bearing registration no. GA-01-W-6952 in rash and negligent manner endangering human lives and gave dash to on coming Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle bearing no. GA-09-B-3357 thereby causing grievous hurt to the rider of the Motorcycle namely Prakash Yadav. The respondent( accused) was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW1 Abhay Naik, who was Motor Vehicle Inspector, at the relevant time, had inspected the Truck and the Motorcycle and had issued the Accident R...
Gurudas Gopal Pai and Another Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande,J.) Heard Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. 2. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the land acquisition references made pursuant to the notification dated 28.7.1996 issued by the Government of Goa. 3. By notification dated 28.7.1996, published in the local news papers on 6th September, 1996, large tracts of land were acquired by the Government in Village Bhimpal and Pissurlem of Sattari Taluka for the purpose of expansion of Honda Industrial Estate. An area admeasuring 54,057 sq. metres of survey No. 24/1 of Village Pissurlem, belonging to the appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 and an area admeasuring 88,435 sq. metres of the very same survey number, belonging to the appellant in First Appeal No.285/2007 were part of the acquired land. 4. The appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 claimed compensation at the rate of ...
Narasinha Ramachandra Agrahar@ Shetty Vs. Prashant Shambha Shetty and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order dated 10/10/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco whereby the evidence of the petitioner came to be closed in view of the absence of the witness of the petitioner. 4. Shri M. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioner had sought two adjournments and thereafter the advocate appearing for the petitioner returned the brief. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the subsequent date when the advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought an adjournment, witness of the petitioner was not present and, as such, the learned Judge passed the impugned...
Allan Victor De Souza Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The above Petition seeks to quash the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Respondent no.1 as well as the subsequent Order dated 02.12.2004, whereby, inter alia, part of the salary of the Petitioners was ordered to be deducted for the recovery of the amount due to the Respondent no.2. 3. Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the initial Judgment dated 24.06.2004, on the ground that the Registrar has passed the impugned Judgment on the assumption that he is a nominee, when the law provides that such proceedings are to be disposed of upon appointment by a Notification by the Central Registrar to perform the functions of an Arbitrator. Learned Counsel further pointed out that no such Notification has been produced by the Respondents and, as such, the whole exercise...
Ashok Ramnath Acharya Vs. Raj Bhandare and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 though served failed to remain present. 2. The above petition challenges an order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, under Order XV A of the Civil Procedure Code whereby an application filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent no.1 to deposit the licence fees of Rs.30,000/- came to be rejected. 3. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Shri Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order at para 7 of the impugned order has non suited the petitioner to direct the respondent no.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the ground that there was no material on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that the licence fees of Rs.30,000/- per month was agreed to be paid by...
Mahesh Kamat Vs. S. Vallabhdas Vishundas
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant who is the 2 complainant in Criminal Case No.71/P/1998/D before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao takes exception to thejudgment and order of acquittal dated 16/12/2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao acquitting the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before learned Magistrate. 4. The complainant who was employed with Kadamba Transport Corporation as Deputy Finance Controller filed the above criminal case against the accused for having committed offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. According to the complainant, on 27/03/1996, the accused lodged report with Porvorim Police Station which was registered under Crime No.28/1996 under Sections 419, 420, 468 of I.P.C. against the complainan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »