Mumbai Goa Court June 2012 Judgments
Sher Singh Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary of Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Lawande, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service. 3. The short point for consideration in the above Criminal Writ Petition is as to whether the Petitioner has made out a case for parole on the ground that his widowed mother is seriously ill which would entitle him to get such relief. By the impugned Order dated 12.06.2012, the Respondent no. 2 has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the present Petition has been filed. 4. Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, pointed out that the Respondent no. 2 has misconstrued the provisions of the Prison Rules to reject the application filed by the Petitioner as, according to her, there was enough evidence on record to suggest that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Damodar Gaonkar Vs. Executive Engineer, Works Division Ii, Water R ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The above Petition seeks to quash and set aside the Orders dated 10.01.2011, 25.01.2011 and 13.05.2011, all issued by the Respondents under the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002, (for short, 'The Water Regulations Act'). 4. During the course of the hearing of the above Petition, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petition has pointed out that though all the impugned Orders in the above Petition have been issued under The Water Regulations Act, nevertheless, the said Act was not applicable or extended to the area where the property of the Petitioner is located. Learned Counsel as such submits that all the impugned Orders are without jurisdiction and cannot be s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Champabai Sadashiv Raut Dessai and Another Vs. Smt. Luiza Fernand ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the orders dated 02.03.2012 and 30.03.2012 of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Quepem, whereby further examination of evidence of the petitioners was closed in view of the absence of PW2 on 02.03.2012. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that on 02.03.2012, PW2 was not present as according to him he had some election work. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the said date, an application was filed by the petitioners to the effect that as PW2 was not available, the petitioners would examine a surveyor Mr. Tito D'Cunha. The learned Counsel further pointed out that despite of the stand t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Francisco Fonseca and Another Vs. the Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal at Panaji dated 15/06/2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioners praying for stay during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector at Panaji dated 29/02/2012 came to be rejected. 4. During the course of hearing of the above petition Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 pointed out that in case the Tribunal is directed to decide the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Shri M.B. Usgaonkar and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Both the above appeals are taken up together for hearing and final disposal as both the appeals challenge the judgment passed by the learned Reference Court dated 30.06.2007. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as 'the said Act”) dated 27.11.1997, different portions of the land belonging to the applicant came to be acquired for improvement of a curve at Dhavshirem, in Village Panchayat of Usgao-Ganjem in Ponda Taluka. The areas acquired belonging to the applicant in respect of property surveyed under No.60/7 is 60 square metres; survey No. 202/4 is 1400 square metrs; survey No.203/1, is 135 square metres; survey No. 203/2 is 2000 square metres; survey No.204/1 is 1295 square metres and survey No.214/1 is 145 square metres. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.01.20...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa Secretariat and Others Vs. Shri ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Oral Judgment: None for the Appellants in First Appeal no. 220 of 2007. Hence, the said First Appeal no. 220/2007 stands dismissed for default. 2. Heard Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants in First Appeal no. 90 of 2007. 3. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 28.12.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 281/2004, whereby the counter claim filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondents filed a suit praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs: “a) For declaration that the entries existing in the column “Name of the Occupant” of the survey records of the suit property bearing survey no. 11/1 of Village Cormonem of Sanguem taluka except the name of Plaintiff no. 1 are erroneous and requires to be deleted and striked out. b) For directions to the Defendants to delete and strike out the name of Government from the...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Maria Zita Afonso Daughter of Late Xavier and Another Vs. the Map ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Shri P. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.19 and 20 and Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.21 to 23. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The notice issued to the respondents was for disposal of the above petition finally at the stage of admission. Hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel the petition was heard finally. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji dated 19/07/2011 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners to amend the plaint came to be rejected. 4. The suit filed by the petitioner is inter alia for seeking a declaration that the mortgage deed dated 5/09/1995 and all other subsequent and incidental proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Collector and S.D.O. and Another Vs. Shri Kiran Madhav Vaidhya
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Appellants and Shri Gawas, learned Counsel holding for Shri N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate, appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 77/2001 whereby a reference preferred by the Respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land belonging to the Respondents situated in Village Bethora of Ponda Taluka was acquired by the Appellants for the proposed Ponda bye-pass road from Dhavli to Khandepar pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 18.10.1999. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, dated 15.12.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation for the land acquired a...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Bardez Bazar Consumer Co-op. So ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. This common judgment and order shall dispose of the above three appeals filed against the orders, of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Branch (I.T.A.T.), dated 6/9/2006 in I.T.A. No. 214 to 217/PANJ/2005; 2/1/2006 in I.T.A. No. 29/PANJ/1998; and 9/7/2007 in I.T.A. No. 92/PNJ/2007, thereby holding that the principle of mutuality applies and that the income earned from members is liable to be exempted from tax. 2. The respondent is the assessee, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, engaged in trading in consumer goods to its members as well as non-members. 3. Facts relevant for the disposal of the Tax Appeal no. 13 of 2007 may be stated as under: The assessment years relevant for the purpose of this appeal are 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. For the assessment year 1997-1998, the assessee had filed return of income on 15/10/1997 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( I.T. Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mohit Chari, S/O Subhas Chari and Another Vs. State Through Pp.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Heard Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') take exception to the judgment and order dated 15/01/2010 passed by the Children's Court in Special Case No.20/2006 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 8(1) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and sentenced each one of them to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo one month's Simple Imprisonment. Amount of Rs.5,000/-, if paid, has been ordered to be handed over to victim girls though their parents by way of compensation. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under: On 12/07/2006, the accused kidnapped the victim girls from lawful custody of their guardians by deceitful manner by enticing them and took them at Cabo de Rama...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »