Mumbai Goa Court June 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.
Mr. Mahadev Parsekar, (since deceased) through his legal heirs. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ponda dated 02.01.2012 and 12.03.2012 whereby the cross of the petitioners in respect of PW1 and PW2 came to be closed. Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders essentially on the ground that the petitioners have never sought any adjournment during the course of the evidence of the respondents but however for the first time on 02.01.2012 when the petitioners sought an adjournment to continue the cross examination of PW1, the learned Judge dismissed the application. The learned counsel further points out that thereafter the petitioners filed an application t...
Smt. Fatima Braganza, retd. (since deceased) and Others Vs. the Hon'bl ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the petitioner has prayed as follows: i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner interests on the arrears of pension benefit right from the date of their becoming due as worked out in Exhibit 'A' hereto; ii. A writ of mandamus, or direction or order in the nature or mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay further interests from 17/05/2004 till the date of actual payment; iii. A writ of mandamus, or order, direction in the nature of mandamus to make the said payment within a stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court deems proper and convenient. iv. Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and necessary. v. Costs of this Petition.” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: She was an Ex- Section Officer from the establishment of High Court of Bombay at Go...
Joaquim L. Dias, S/O. Jose Dias and Another Vs. Baptist Coelho, S/O. M ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 30/10/2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.134/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the plaint filed by the said respondent came to be allowed. 3. Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that according to the appellants the plaint filed by the respondent no.1 is to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on two counts. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and further the suit is barred by Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Counsel further pointed out that respondent no.1 is merely a contracto...
Smt. Premavati Basu Naik and Others Vs. Shri Suresh Basu Naik and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 389/2010 whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and deed of sale dated 21.12.1993 registered before the Sub-Registrar of Mormugao came to be declared as null, void and ineffective and without any legal effect. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit on the ground that there exists a property known as “Piturlem” situated at Sancoale, which is described in the Land Registration Office of Salcete under No.3595, old series, and admeasuring an area of 1318 square metres and surveyed in the records of right under No. 276/2 of Village Sancoale. It is further their case that the suit property was purchased by the respondents' father on 24.12.1968. It is further the case of the respondents that the appellant nos.2, 4 and 6 misguided the appellant no.1 and ...
Mrs. Arcelina Furtado and Others Vs. M/S. Eastern International Hotels ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent no.1 inter alia to declare the right of ownership over the suit property came to be decreed. 3. The respondent no.1 filed the suit on the ground that they are the owners in possession of the suit property surveyed under no.63/1 and 65/2 of Village of Majorda which according to the said respondent is a part and parcel of the property described in Land Registration Office under no.1944. The property was thereafter described by inscription no.11809 in favour of Joao Miguel Gomes and others. It is further their case that by Deed of Gift dated 12/03/1916, the suit property was gifted and partitioned. It is further their case that by Deed of Sale dated 30/09/1977, they purchased half share of Maria Fatima Filomena and Oliveira Vas of the suit property and as such they became owners in po...
Anton Luis Piedade Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 11th August, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, South Goa, at Margao in Sessions Case No.18/2008, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. The accused has been convicted for committing murder of one Caitan Inas Fernandes on 28th April, 2008 between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. at Bamnabhat, Ambaulim, Quepem, Goa 2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal, are as under: PW.6 Shantaram Gaonkar, Deputy Sarpanch of Ambaulim Panchayat lodged a report (Exhibit 28) at Quepem Police Station on 28th April, 2008 at about 7.10 p.m., stating therein that a person was killed at Bamnabhat Ambaulim at about 15.00 hours, near the residence of one Anton Fernandes. Pursuant to the said r...
Gurudas Gaonkar, S/O Mahadev Vs. State (Through P. P.)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th/8th April, 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao (Trial Judge), in Sessions Case No. 19/2006. The appellant, accused in the said case, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). He has been convicted for committing both the offences. In respect of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months, whereas, in respect of the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused. 2. Case of the prosecution, i...
Shiva Naik Vs. Devidas Satappa Telgi, S/O. Satappa Telgi and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith. 4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Registrar dated 15/03/2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed for non-payment of process fees to serve the unserved respondents. 5. During the course of the hearing of the above petition Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to pay the requisite process fees within two weeks from today. 6. Considering the said statement of the learned Counsel and in the interest of justice the impugned order dated 15/03/2012 passed by the learned Registrar deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 15/03/2012 passed by the learned Registrar is quashed and set aside. (ii) First Appeal No.3/2011 is restored to the file. (iii) Petitioner is permitted to pay the pr...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/S Sunprint Ink Industries
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri V. Palekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 22.07.2004. “1. Whether the judgment and order of the Employees Insurance Court in as much as it overlooks the provisions of Section 1(6) of the Employees State Insurance Act and notification issued by the Government of Goa in the year 1977, thereby extending the provisions of the E.S.I.C. Act to Goa, is contrary to law? 2. What is effect of payment of contribution by the respondent for the year April 91-July 92 and January 94 - September, 94 under Section 39 read with regulation 31 of E. S. I. C. Act and regulation, qua the coverage of the establishment of the respondent under the E.S.I.C. Act? 3. Whether judgment of the E.I. Court is perverse and as against the muster roll showing the names of 10 employees including S...
Mr. Sandip Kalangutkar Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Milena Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above application is filed by the Applicant for bail on the ground that the Applicant was arrested by the Respondent Police Station on 16.05.2011 under Section 143, 147, 148, 302 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. no. 73/2011 and thereafter was lodged at the Respondent Police Station. It is further his case that it is alleged by the Respondent that on 03.04.2011 between 3.00 hours to 4.00 hours, near Club Virgin, Gauravaddo, Calangute, Bardez, Goa, the Applicant along with the other accused with the common object formed an unlawful assembly armed with spanners and in furtherance with their common object assaulted one Ravi Rajan V. and his driver by name Sunil with slaps, fist blows, etc., and further assaulted the said Ravi Rajan V. and his driver said Sunil with spanners causing injuries ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »