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.
Madan Malji Kambli and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all the affidavits are filed, pleadings are complete, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2} This writ petition together with other petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are, therefore, disposed off by this common judgment. 3} The State of Goa has initiated proceedings for Acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the construction of the New International Airport at Mopa in Pernem Taluka. 4} The Notification and Declaration in that behalf was issued on 25th July 2008 and 28th July 2009, respectively, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the L.A Act”) and under section 6 of the L.A Act. Both are impugned on various grounds to which we will advert a little later. 5} The petitioners claim to be owners/tenants of the properties indicated against their names/ the names of their ancestors i...
Raju Narayan Shirke Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2012
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. The challenge in the above Appeal is to the conviction of the Appellant in Sessions Case no. 4/2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. It was the case of the prosecution/Respondents that the Appellant and the deceased were residing in a house at Piddukarwada, Jogiwada, IDC Road Bicholim and that there were frequent quarrels between the two over drinks relating to the use of a portion of the house by the accused who was admittedly married to the sister of the deceased. It is further their contention that the Appellant was doing his tailoring job in a portion of the house of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›