Mumbai Goa Court August 2012 Judgments
Sadashiv D. Naik Vs. Umesh Krishna Sawanth
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 23/1999 against the respondent (defendant) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants, etc. from interfering with and doing any illegal construction of house in the suit paddy field and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to fill the trenches and to demolish any construction done in the suit paddy field during the pendency of the suit and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is a cotenant in possession of the suit paddy field known as “Karpan Moli” bearing survey no. 307/10 situated in the village of Arambol at Varcha Wada and his name is recorded in the tenant's column of Form No. I and XIV as co-tenant. By virtue of Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Agricultural tenancy Act), he became the deemed purchaser of the suit paddy field along with other co-tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Vagurmekar S/O. Shiva Vagurmekar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant ('the accused' for short) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th April, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No.27/2009, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. The accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The fine amount is ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation, in the event the same is paid by the accused. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case leading to filing of the present appeal is, as under : On 22.3.2008, at around 10.30 p.m., PW.5 Deepak Redkar, along with his brother PW.3 Dinesh Redkar had gone for celeb...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv D. Naik Vs. Umesh Krishna Sawanth
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 23/1999 against the respondent (defendant) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants, etc. from interfering with and doing any illegal construction of house in the suit paddy field and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to fill the trenches and to demolish any construction done in the suit paddy field during the pendency of the suit and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is a cotenant in possession of the suit paddy field known as Karpan Moli bearing survey no. 307/10 situated in the village of Arambol at Varcha Wada and his name is recorded in the tenant's column of Form No. I and XIV as co-tenant. By virtue of Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Agricultural tenancy Act), he became the deemed purchaser of the suit paddy field along with other co-tenants. Since the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Atchut Mucund Alornekar and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investig ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2/S/2012/B pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-da-Gama (Goa) along with the F.I.R. registered on 25/04/2008 by the CBI(ACB), Goa. 3. F.I.R. dated 25/4/2008 was lodged by Shri S. S. Harwalkar, the superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. It was alleged that during the period from 2005 to 2006, M/s. Adani Exports Ltd, Ahmedabad imported two consignments of Naphtha and one Consignment of Fuel Oil at Goa Port. The petitioners and others named in the F.I.R. illegally allowed the warehousing of the said consignments in the private Bonded Tank of M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mormugao, after expiry of licence No. 2/05 on 31/12/2005 and without permission of Assistant Commissioner of Customs. They did...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Atchut Mucund Alornekar and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investig ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2/S/2012/B pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-da-Gama (Goa) along with the F.I.R. registered on 25/04/2008 by the CBI(ACB), Goa. 3. F.I.R. dated 25/4/2008 was lodged by Shri S. S. Harwalkar, the superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. It was alleged that during the period from 2005 to 2006, M/s. Adani Exports Ltd, Ahmedabad imported two consignments of Naphtha and one Consignment of Fuel Oil at Goa Port. The petitioners and others named in the F.I.R. illegally allowed the warehousing of the said consignments in the private Bonded Tank of M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mormugao, after expiry of licence No. 2/05 on 31/12/2005 and without permission of Assistant Commissioner of Customs. They did...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rosario S. Fernandes Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for respondent no.5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/07/2004 exhibit G passed by respondent no.3 and resolution dated 06/12/2003 exhibit M passed by respondent no.5. 3. The case of the petitioner is as under: The petitioner is a citizen of India and is residing at House No.1519/A situated at Zuem, Baradi, Velim, Salcete, Goa (hereinafter referred to as 'the house' for short). Respondent no.1 is the authority vested with the powers under Article 372-A of the Goa Legislative Diploma No.2070 and Rules made thereunder known as the Code of Communidades (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to decide the matters regarding regularisation of unauthorized occupation and encroachment of land vested in Communidade. Respondent no.5 is a body created under the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rosario S. Fernandes Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for respondent no.5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/07/2004 exhibit G passed by respondent no.3 and resolution dated 06/12/2003 exhibit M passed by respondent no.5. 3. The case of the petitioner is as under: The petitioner is a citizen of India and is residing at House No.1519/A situated at Zuem, Baradi, Velim, Salcete, Goa (hereinafter referred to as 'the house' for short). Respondent no.1 is the authority vested with the powers under Article 372-A of the Goa Legislative Diploma No.2070 and Rules made thereunder known as the Code of Communidades (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to decide the matters regarding regularisation of unauthorized occupation and encroachment of land vested in Communidade. Respondent no.5 is a body created under the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Communidade of Chicalim Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.1. None for the Respondent no.2, though served. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 29.06.2006, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.15/2003, whereby a reference filed by the Appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'), came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act, published in the Official Gazette dated 24.08.2000, land was acquired belonging to the Appellant for the construction of a Telephone Exchange at Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka. The area acquired was part of the property surveyed under No.121 admeasuring an area of 2000 square metres. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.25/- per square...
Tag this Judgment!Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday M. Raut and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. 2. The above Petition challenges the Award dated 10.10.2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and interfered with the punishment which was inflicted by the Management whereby the services of the Respondent no.1 were terminated. The Tribunal by the impugned Award has modified the said punishment and has directed that the reinstatement of the Respondent no.1 without any back wages and withholding two increments. 3. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has assailed the impugned Award essentially on the ground that the Respondent no.1 was a habitual absentee and absented himself from reporting for duty and, as such, in an inquiry which was held, the findings to that effect were i...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Yesso Kerkar (Since Deceased) by Lrs. Vs. Dr. Antonio Afonso (De ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges the judgment dated 7/09/2006, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge at Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.7/2006 whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents challenging the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction filed in Regular Civil Suit No.114/1999 dated 2/12/2005 was partly allowed and the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents was granted and, as such, the petitioners, their agents and servants etc. were inter alia restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondents in the suit property except the room situated therein. 3. The above petition was taken up for interim reliefs before this Court and stay was granted on 7/09/2006 which was ordered to be continued by order dated 28/09/2006. Thereafter, an ad interim r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »