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.
M/S Ravalnath Builders Vs. Mrs. Sebastiana Escolastica Beatriz Nunes M ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri J. A. Lobo, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. After hearing the matter for some time, the following order is passed by consent. It is submitted by Shri Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Shri Ramani, who was appointed as a Commissioner has disclosed his inability to go on with the commission. ORDER (i) Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate present in Court is appointed as a Commissioner to record the evidence of the respondent at her residence. (ii) The Commissioner's fees shall be borne by the petitioner. (iii) Before proceeding with the examination of the respondent, the Head of Department of E.N.T., Goa Medical College, Dr. C. P. Das shall remain present before the recording of the said evidence and in case...
M/S L and K Associates Vs. M/S Koshy Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri M. Amonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the cross objections filed by the appellant have been rejected by the Lower Appellate Court without scrutinizing the evidence on record and misreading the evidence led by the parties before the Court?” 3. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. A short point in controversy in the above Second Appeal is that the appeal preferred by the respondent before the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, came to be dismissed wherein the appellant has also filed the cross objections challenging the findings on the issue no.3 framed by the learned Trial Judge refusing the relief claimed by the appellant for mesne profit/damages in the suit. 5. Shri Kantak, learned Counsel appea...
Shri Rama Krishna Sarmalkar Vs. Shri Krishna Babu Kinlekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.D. Bhobe, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 and Shri D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.14. 2. The petitioner has filed the above contempt petition complaining that the sale deed has been executed on 15/09/2005 in breach of the orders passed by this court dated 31/08/2005. 3. Shri S.G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that despite of an order passed of status quo by this Court, in breach thereof willfully the respondents no.1 to 4 and 7 to 13 have executed the said sale deed. The learned Counsel pointed out that it is a serious matter that the respondents have committed a contempt and, as such, they should be prosecuted under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Counsel has taken me through the order passed by this Court and pointed out that there was a specific or...
M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and Another Vs. Workmen, represen ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Shivraj Gaokar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal whereby the preliminary issue raised by the Petitioners to the effect that no appropriate notice under Section 19(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short 'The Act'), served on the Petitioners to terminate the settlement came to be rejected. 3. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that under the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act, it is mandatory for the Respondents to serve a notice of two months in order to show their intention of terminating a settlement. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the settlement arrived at between the Petitioners and the Union/Respondents, was for a period ending 3...
Ernestina Pereira (Since Deceased) Through Her Legal Heirs and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri D. Vernekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of learned Counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, dated 03.05.2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioners for leave to produce the documents came to be partly allowed and the documents mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1(b) to (g) at para 1 of the application came to be rejected. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioners were denied leave to produce the survey plan of the survey holding No.43/1-A and 1-B of Village Nuvem, Form I and XIV of survey holding No. 43/1-A of Village Nuvem, judgment and order in LRC No. 531/2005/III, death and burial certificate of Esmeralda Pereira, agreement dated 16.11.1991, and notice issued by the Additional Collector...
Shivram Raoji Parcenkar and Others Vs. Subhash Pandhari Naik Desai and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri M. P. Almeida, the 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 the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Quepem dated 27/03/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for recasting of issues came to be dismissed. 4. Shri S. Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the learned Judge whilst framing issue no.2 has framed an issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled for easmentary right over the property belonging to the respondents, but however lost sight of the fact that the petitioners are also claiming such right on the ground that the property of the petitioners is landlocked under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The learned Counsel further pointed...
Pramila Vassant Shetkar and Others Vs. Cabido De Se Primacial of Cathe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondents for disposal of the above Petition finally at the stage of admission. Despite of said notice, none appeared for the Respondent. 4. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Quepem, whereby the cross examination of the Petitioners of Dw.2 and Dw.3 was closed in view of the absence of the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. 5. Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has pointed out that the Petitioners have never sought any adjournment and that on the relevant date, the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners was present at 11.30 a.m. before the learned Judge but the witness was absent but, however, as he had to attend the funeral, he had to leave the Court and, as such, when the matter was called out at 12 O'Clock, the Petitioners requ...
Gurunath Ganesh Redkar and Others Vs. Balkrishna Jaiwant Redkar and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Shri P. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law by Order dated 30.10.2007: 1) Whether in view of the fact that there was no specific time limit fixed for the performance of the agreement and the appellant had been put in possession of the property to be sold their counter claim for specific performance which was filed within two years of the repudiation of the Agreement by the Respondent could be said to be barred by limitation and unreasonably delayed? 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that a plot surveyed under no. 56/1 of Curchorem Village along with a building situated therein was agreed to be sold by Balkrishna Jaiwant Redkar vide Agreement of Sale dated 06.04.1969 to the late Gurudas to the deceased appellant no. 1 for a total sum of Rs.60,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.10,000/- ...
Shri Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu and Others Vs. Shri Vasudeo Rajendra ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for respondents no.1 to 5, Mr. S. Mahambrey, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.6 and 9 and Mrs. Agni, learned Amicus Curiae. None present for respondents no.7 and 8 though served. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : (a) This Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 (ANNEXURE “D” to the Petition); (b) This Court also be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, declaration or direction that Article 30 of the Devasthan Regulations is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 4. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as under : The petitioners are the Mahajans of respondent no.8 Deva...
State of Goa, Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. M/S. Heera Constru ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. S. Mordekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 28/01/2009 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.99/1998, whereby the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in view of the dispute between the parties an Arbitrator came to be appointed on 7/05/1996 to adjudicate upon such dispute raised by the respondents. The submissions were duly raised before the sole Arbitrator and an award came to be passed on 8/11/1997 adjudicating upon the claim put forward by the respondents. An award was filed before the learned Civil Judge on 24/12/1997 and the notice came to be issued to the appellant. The appellant raised objection to the award under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940. The pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »