Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes for the petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13, Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni for respondent No.10. 2. This petition, by way of public interest litigation, has been filed by the petitioners making grievance regarding deposition of filing residues and tar balls on the beaches of Goa. It is the case of the petitioners that most of the beaches in the State of Goa are polluted by oil and no material machinery is operating for removal of the tar balls and oil residues. By the present petition, the petitioners pray that the respondents be directed to take appropriate measures thereof. 3. From time to time, this Court has passed several orders. Respondent No.6 Union of India, sought a report from National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur. A copy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes for the petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13, Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni for respondent No.10. 2. This petition, by way of public interest litigation, has been filed by the petitioners making grievance regarding deposition of filing residues and tar balls on the beaches of Goa. It is the case of the petitioners that most of the beaches in the State of Goa are polluted by oil and no material machinery is operating for removal of the tar balls and oil residues. By the present petition, the petitioners pray that the respondents be directed to take appropriate measures thereof. 3. From time to time, this Court has passed several orders. Respondent No.6 Union of India, sought a report from National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur. A copy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant, Mr.Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the respondent and Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned Advocate for the intervenor. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.14/2011 allowing the Revision Application against the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.18/2011 whereby Judicial Magistrate, First Class ordered the Investigating Officer to release the animals to the respondent after obtaining the treatment and medical charges, if the injures were sustained by the animals prior to the attachment and rest of the cost of maintenance of the animals was to be borne by the applicant. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to filin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant, Mr.Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the respondent and Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned Advocate for the intervenor. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.14/2011 allowing the Revision Application against the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.18/2011 whereby Judicial Magistrate, First Class ordered the Investigating Officer to release the animals to the respondent after obtaining the treatment and medical charges, if the injures were sustained by the animals prior to the attachment and rest of the cost of maintenance of the animals was to be borne by the applicant. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to filin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 30/11/2002 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (first Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1999, which was filed by the defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 117/96/II, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29/04/1999, passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court) in the said suit. The defendants of the said Special Suit have filed cross-objection in the present Second Appeal. This common judgment shall dispose of the Second Appeal as well as the cross-objection. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Special Civil Suit. 3. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction for directing the defendants to remove the compound wall, the room and the store room and whatever encroachments that may be existing in the suit property and to give vacant po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao in Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452 read with 34 IPC. The respondents were accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Private Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A. 2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 28.1.1997, at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused entered into his tailoring institute “Remedios Tailoring Institute” at Kharband road, Margao, thereby trespassing into the premises of the complainant and started abusing the complainant. Accused No.4 Agnel Pontes who was armed with danda, assaulted the complainant on his back. Thereafter, accused No.1 Dorothy Siqueira snatched danda from accused No.4 and gave blow on the head of the complainant, due to which the complainant started bleeding profusely. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao in Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452 read with 34 IPC. The respondents were accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Private Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A. 2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 28.1.1997, at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused entered into his tailoring institute Remedios Tailoring Institute at Kharband road, Margao, thereby trespassing into the premises of the complainant and started abusing the complainant. Accused No.4 Agnel Pontes who was armed with danda, assaulted the complainant on his back. Thereafter, accused No.1 Dorothy Siqueira snatched danda from accused No.4 and gave blow on the head of the complainant, due to which the complainant started bleeding profusely. Thereafter, all the accused started a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U. V. Bakre, J. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 09/09/2003 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa (trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application(C.M.A.) No. 4 of 1992. 2. In the said application(C.M.A. No. 4/1992) filed by the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as “MSFC”) under Sections 31 and 32 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, against the above named respondents no. 2 and 3, the trial Court had ordered attachment of houses no. 144, 144/A and 144/B of Ward no.1 at Nagorcem, Canacona, which, in terms of the house-tax records maintained by the Canacona Municipal Council, were registered in the name of respondent no. 2. A warrant of attachment of immovable property under Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) was issued by the trial Court, in respect of the said houses, copies of which were duly affixed by the Bailiff of the Court on conspicuous part of the said houses; on the Court building at Canacona; and Taluka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 30/11/2002 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (first Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1999, which was filed by the defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 117/96/II, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29/04/1999, passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court) in the said suit. The defendants of the said Special Suit have filed cross-objection in the present Second Appeal. This common judgment shall dispose of the Second Appeal as well as the cross-objection. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Special Civil Suit. 3. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction for directing the defendants to remove the compound wall, the room and the store room and whatever encroachments that may be existing in the suit property and to give vacant po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 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 learned J.M.F.C., Sanguem, dated 18.03.2010, whereby the interim relief sought by the Petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, came to be dismissed. Appeal preferred challenging the said Judgment also came to be dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, by Judgment dated 26.08.2011. 4. After hearing the matter for sometime, it was agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the interim maintenance fixed by the learned J.M.F.C. of Rs.2,500/- to be paid to the minor child can be modified whereby the Respondent would pay a consolidated amount for main...
Tag this Judgment!