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.
Shri Vishram Jaya Shetkar Alias Manohar Jaya Shetkar and Others Vs. Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30/4/2003 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/1999. 2. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed by the defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 83/1992/B against the Judgment and Decree dated 31/8/1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem (Trial Court, for short), in the said suit. 3. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Regular Civil Suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit, against the defendant, for damages of Rs.18,800/- and they had also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said sum of Rs.18,800/-, calculated at quarterly rests as from 6/10/1992 till the actual payment. 5. Case of the plaintiffs was as follows: They are co-owners in possession and enjoyment of a landed property, bearing survey no.19/17, situated at Amo...
Shaba Zulo Shet (Since Deceased, Through His Legal Heirs) and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
The above appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 24/6/2002 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short.) in Land Acquisition Cases No. 218/89/I, 224/89/I, 64/87, 221/89/I and 223/89/I. The M. C. A.s, tagged to the above appeals, are filed under Order XLI, Rule 27(aa) of Civil Procedure Code, for leave to tender in evidence a certificate of death regarding Satyabhama Bolnekar. By order dated 24/11/2011, this Court has directed that the said M. C. A.s shall to be considered along with the appeals. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeals, in short, are as follows: The Government had acquired land for 5 MLD Water Supply Scheme to Canacona and surrounding villages which was subject matter of L.A.C no. 64/87 and for construction of approach road to Talpona-Galgibaga Bridge on Canacona side, which was subject matter of other Land acquisition cases No. 218/89/I, 224/89/I, 221/89/I and 223/89/I. The properties involved in the acquisition, insofa...
Shri Dhaktu Vengurlekar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3. 2. The above Petition seeks for a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the impugned Judgment dated 15.04.2004 on the file of the Director of Panchayat Petition no. 174/A/2003. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has a Mundkarial dwelling house bearing house no. 63 in survey no. 13/5 and 13/6 at Vaddy Merces, Goa, bearing House no. 63 which dwelling house has been purchased by the Petitioner pursuant to the proceedings before the learned Mamlatdar under the Mundcar Act. A purchase Sanad was issued in favour of the Petitioner dated 02.08.2001, whereby an area of 300 square metres located in both the survey numbers were purchased by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the ...
Shri Dhaktu Vengurlekar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3. 2. The above Petition seeks for a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the impugned Judgment dated 15.04.2004 on the file of the Director of Panchayat Petition no. 174/A/2003. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has a Mundkarial dwelling house bearing house no. 63 in survey no. 13/5 and 13/6 at Vaddy Merces, Goa, bearing House no. 63 which dwelling house has been purchased by the Petitioner pursuant to the proceedings before the learned Mamlatdar under the Mundcar Act. A purchase Sanad was issued in favour of the Petitioner dated 02.08.2001, whereby an area of 300 square metres located in both the survey numbers were purchased by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the ...
Shailesh Manohar Sastikar, S/O. Late Manohar Sastikar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The appellant is the original accused no. 2 in Sessions Case no. 21 of 2008. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji (Trial Court) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 28/04/2011 and order dated 01/06/2011, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellant as accused no.2 and his father namely Manohar Sastikar, since deceased, as accused no. 1 were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. During the course of the trial, accused no.1 expire...
The Bal Ganesh Mandir Association and Another Vs. State of Goa Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for an order to quash and set aside the order dated 17/6/2011 passed by the Respondent no. 3 and to declare that the action of Respondent no. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Goa Land (Prohibition of Construction) Act, 1985 ('The Act', for short) and the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondent no. 2 to consider the representation for regularization of the structure on the terms and conditions as deemed fit by the Respondent no. 2. 3. By the said order dated 17/6/2011, the Respondent no. 3, in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, has directed the opponents who are 194 in number, all residents of PDA Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa, whose names are mentioned below the impugned order and which includes the petitioner no. 2, t...
Domingos Fernandes and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1 and 2, Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.3 and Mr. Sonak, learned Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. By this petition, which is filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : (a) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents from doing any work within 100 metres of the river bank. (b) For a further writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents no.1 and 2 to remove construction, as also the diesel pump which falls within 20 metres of the river bank. (c) For a further writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent no.3 to...
Shailesh Manohar Sastikar, S/O. Late Manohar Sastikar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The appellant is the original accused no. 2 in Sessions Case no. 21 of 2008. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji (Trial Court) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 28/04/2011 and order dated 01/06/2011, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellant as accused no.2 and his father namely Manohar Sastikar, since deceased, as accused no. 1 were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. During the course of the trial, accused no.1 expire...
The Bal Ganesh Mandir Association and Another Vs. State of Goa Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for an order to quash and set aside the order dated 17/6/2011 passed by the Respondent no. 3 and to declare that the action of Respondent no. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Goa Land (Prohibition of Construction) Act, 1985 ('The Act', for short) and the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondent no. 2 to consider the representation for regularization of the structure on the terms and conditions as deemed fit by the Respondent no. 2. 3. By the said order dated 17/6/2011, the Respondent no. 3, in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, has directed the opponents who are 194 in number, all residents of PDA Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa, whose names are mentioned below the impugned order and which includes the petitioner no. 2, t...
Gaurav Gupta Vs. Mrs. Radhika Gupta
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance came to be disposed of directing the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent, inter alia, consolidated sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per month besides the amounts which have been awarded under the Domestic Violence Act. 4. Shri Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, has pointed out that the learned Judge has not given any reasons nor consider the material adduced by both the parties to come to the conclusion that the Petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »