Mumbai Goa Court May 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.
Shri Laxman Jairam Malvankar Major Vs. Smt. Reshma Ramesh Narvekar Maj ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-23-2012
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 23/06/2004 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mapusa (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2004. 2. The said Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2004 was preferred by the plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 122/2000/C(New) against the judgment, order and decree dated 16/03/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bicholim (Trial Court). 3. The parties shall be referred to as per their status in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 122/2000/C(New). 4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for lodging false complaint and for publication of libel. The defendant no.1 is the complainant whereas defendant no. 2 is the Editor of the daily news paper “Tarun Bharat”. The defendant no. 1 had lodged the complaint at Bicholim Police Station against the plaintiff and other...
Smt. Felicidade Braganza, Widow, Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heir ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-17-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. This Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge, Mapusa (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2000. 2.Regular Civil Appeal no. 90 of 2000 was preferred by the present appellants, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30/03/2000 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 98/88/B. 3. That Civil Suit had been instituted by the respondent of the present Second Appeal, who is the original plaintiff. 4. The parties shall be referred to as per their status in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 98/88/B. 5.The plaintiff is the owner of the property known as “Poriato” bearing survey no. 198/2 situated at Mudda Vaddi of village saligao of Bardez Taluka. The defendants are having a dwelling house and store room (suit room) in the said property. As on the date of filing of the suit, the original defendant was registered as Mundkar in respect of the dwelling house. ...
Mrs. Sanyogita Rane and Others Vs. Mrs. Manoramabai Rauji Rane (Since ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-11-2012
1. The above Appeal and Cross-Objection, which emanate from the Judgment and Award dated 22/02/2000, passed by the Additional District Judge at Mapusa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 12 of 1991, are being disposed of, finally, at the admission stage, as was already notified to the parties, by previous orders of this Court. 2. Facts giving rise to the Appeal/Cross-Objection, in short, may be stated as under: Land admeasuring 787 square metres from Survey No. 106(part) of Carapur village was acquired for construction of “300m3 Ground Level Reservoir and Pump House” at Carapur in Bicholim Taluka. By Award dated 19/05/1989, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded a sum of Rs. 20,737/- as compensation for the said acquired land. However, there was dispute regarding the ownership of the property. Hence, the L.A.O. made reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act, for short) which gave rise to the said L. A. Case No...
Joaquim L. Dias and Another Vs. Baptist Coelho and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-11-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Shirodkar holding for Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Kankonkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. None appears on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, though served. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicants seek review of the order dated 27th July, 2011, passed in Appeal from Order No.31 of 2011, dismissing the same on the ground that the plaint could not have been rejected qua some of the defendants. 4. The applicants are defendants No.2 and 3 in Regular Civil Suit No.40/2008/A, filed by respondent No.1, against the applicants. In the said suit, the present applicants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court, by an order dated 15th September, 2009, allowed the application and consequently, dismissed the suit, with costs. 5. Original plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a Regular Civil Suit No.134/2009, before the District ...
Mrs. Preeti A. Lotlikar Vs. Auspicio Rodrigues
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-11-2012
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 10/2/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/2000. 2. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9/12/1999 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji (Trial Court), passed in Special Civil Suit no.54/90/B. 3. The appellant of the present Second Appeal is the defendant of the said Special Civil Suit No.54/90/B, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The Trial Court had decreed the suit with costs and had dismissed the Counter claim of the defendant. The defendant has been directed to pay to the plaintiff the balance amount of Rs.49,596.30 paise along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon from 20/2/1990 till final payment and on payment being made to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been ordered to supply the computer equipment to the defendant as per the purchase order dated 17.11.1989. 4. By the judg...
M/S. Agency Real Margao Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri V. Korgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondent though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao dated 19/04/2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for an adjournment on the ground that their witness Shri Alex Fernandes was sick and was unable to attend the Court and further stating that the petitioner would take steps to appoint a Commissioner to examine such witness, was dismissed. 3. Shri Korgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the said witness is crucial witness and further that only on two occasions earlier the petitioner had sought an adjournment to examine the said witness as the earlier witness who was summoned failed to remain present. The learned Counsel further points out that only on account of the sickness of the said witness the petitioner was unable to proceed with the case on the said da...
Chowgule Education Society and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lawande, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for the intervenors. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 26/03/2012 passed by respondent no.2 under Rule 33 of The Goa Education Rules, 1986 ('the Rules' for short) by which the application dated 26/09/2011 filed by the petitioners for closure of Higher Secondary School, has been rejected. 4. Petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Order dated 29/08/1962 and petitioner no.2 is the Principal of Smt. Parvatibai Chowgule College of Arts and Science. The petitioners sought approval of respondent no.2 for closure of Higher Secondary School in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules by communication dated 26/09/2011. Thereafter, by another communication dat...
Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Filomena thereza Leitao and A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Amira Razak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 54/2003 whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) filed by the respondents was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act, an area of 390 square metres situated at Orlim Village of Salcete Taluka was acquired by the appellants for construction of road in Village Panchayat Varca, Salcete Taluka, vide notification published on 12.07.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer by an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act offered the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.27/- per square m...
Miss Kumud Pagi Vs. Gurudas Shet Gaonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2012
Oral Judgment: (U.V. Bakre, J.) 1.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30.6.2007 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (“Tribunal”, for short), in Claim Petition No. 321/2003/II, whereby the said claim petition has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) thereby claiming total compensation of Rs.12.00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicular accident, which injuries resulted into permanent disability. 3. Facts of the case are as follows: On 16.5.2003, at about 17.30 hours, the claimant was standing on the left hand side of the road at Devenbag Tarir, Canacona, Goa, when the respondent no. 2 drove his tanker bearing registration no. GDS-5523 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant, due to which she fell down and the wheels of the tanker ran o...
Mormugao Municipal Council Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : “a) For writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding and directing the respondents to release and pay to the Petitioner total maturity amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) on the Kisan Vikas Patra certificates under certificate Nos. 99CC348491 to 99CC348550 of Rs.10,000/- each, Registration No.9572 dated 15/04/2002 at Annexure A-1 (colly). b) For interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total maturity amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) on the Kisan Vikas Patra certificates under certificate Nos. 99CC348491 to 99CC348550...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »