Mumbai Goa Court July 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.
Mrs. Reena Ramesh Shirodkar Vs. Ulhas Dattaram Mayekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Rao, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges order dated 7.4.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 60/2012/A by which application dated 5.3.2012 filed by the petitioner to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit has been dismissed. The petitioner is a plaintiff in the above suit filed for mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. After the defendant filed written statement, the plaintiff filed above application seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that there were formal defects in the plaint and also on the ground that there was sufficient cause. 3. The application was opposed by the defendant. 4. By an impugned order learned Judge has dismissed the application primarily on the ground that certain facts which have not been pl...
Mrs. Pritam Prabhu Kholkar Vs. Mr Sushant Prabhu Kholkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
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...
State of Goa, Through Police Inspector Vs. Madivalappa Chalwadi, S/O M ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
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...
Mr. Agostinho Godinho Vs. Mrs. Maria Eufrezita Paulina Lydia Fernandes ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Chopdekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 waives service. 3. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that respondent no.3 is a formal party and the suit is proceeding ex-parte against the said respondent before the learned trial Court and hence notice to said respondent no.3 may be dispensed with. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao dated 20/06/2012 whereby an application for adjournment filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and, as such, the evidence of the petitioner who are defendants in the Regular Civil Suit no.186/2001/C came to be closed. 5. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner...
Mr. Agostinho Godinho Vs. Mrs. Maria Eufrezita Paulina Lydia Fernandes ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Chopdekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 waives service. 3. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that respondent no.3 is a formal party and the suit is proceeding ex-parte against the said respondent before the learned trial Court and hence notice to said respondent no.3 may be dispensed with. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao dated 20/06/2012 whereby an application for adjournment filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and, as such, the evidence of the petitioner who are defendants in the Regular Civil Suit no.186/2001/C came to be closed. 5. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner...
Mrs. Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.7 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.5 and 7 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.7 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of respondent no.5 as Principal is deemed to have been rejected qua respondent no.5. 5. Insofar as respondent no.7 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: “(b) To quash and set aside the promotion of the respondent no.7 as Principal of the respondent no.6. (c) For a direction to hold fresh Departmental Promotional Committee to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal in the vacancy of the Principal with the respo...
Mrs. Nirmala Misquita Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Secretary of Educa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.4 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotions of respondents no.5 and 6 as Principals is deemed to have been rejected qua respondents nos.5 and 6. 5. Insofar as respondent no.4 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: “(c) A writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the selection of respondent no.4 made by the Promotion Committee on 14/07/2003 and his consequential appointment vide letter dated 16/08/2003(Exh.J), made by the respondent no.3 in the post...
Mrs. Nirmala Misquita Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Secretary of Educa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.4 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotions of respondents no.5 and 6 as Principals is deemed to have been rejected qua respondents nos.5 and 6. 5. Insofar as respondent no.4 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: (c) A writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the selection of respondent no.4 made by the Promotion Committee on 14/07/2003 and his consequential appointment vide letter dated 16/08/2003(Exh.J), made by the respondent no.3 in the post of Pri...
M/S. J. L. Baptista, Civil Contractor Vs. State of Goa, Rep. by Execut ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Mascarenhas, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem, dated 22.02.2000, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to award interest in terms of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in an Arbitration Proceedings, an Award came to be passed by the Arbitrator which was submitted to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thereafter, it appears that the Respondents raised same objections to the said Award. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner also filed an application dated 06.11.1992 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, inter alia, claiming that whilst making the Award the Rule of the Court, interest should be...
Shri Shaikh Abdul Razak and Others Vs. Shri Shaikh Kassam and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal No. 2/1998 arises out of Judgment and Decree dated 06/10/1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa (first Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1993, which was filed by defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 of Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 1990 against the judgment and decree dated 31/03/1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sattari at Valpoi (trial Court, for short), in the said suit. 2. The above First Appeal No. 11/2003 has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 17/09/2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa(reference Court, for short), in Land Acquisition Case No. 98 of 1989. 3. The subject matter of the Second Appeal No.2/98 is 1/3rd share of Shaikh Aziz Shaikh Hassan, in the property known as Moxichem Mol, bearing survey nos. 14/1, 14/2 and 24/1 of village Nanus in Sattari Taluka. The subject matter of the First Appeal No. 11/03 is land admeasuring 30,135 square me...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »