Mumbai Goa Court August 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.
Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bran ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor, and Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents. Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel assisted the Prosecution. 2. The application for bail filed by the Applicant on the ground that he was aggrieved by an Order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Bail Application no. 68/2012 whereby, the bail application filed by the Applicant came to be rejected. It is the contention of the Applicant that the Applicant has been arrested by the police attached to the Anti Corruption Branch on 06.03.2012 at 10.45 hours in Crime No. RC 3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(b) and 22(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, (herein after referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). It is further the contention of the Applicant that he was the Investigating Officer and the...
M/S Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Balaji Logistics Carr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
In both these matters the parties are the same and the issues are interconnected. Therefore, both the matters are taken up and being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 4. M/s Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) entered into a contract with M/s Balaji Logistic Carrier (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) dated 25.2.2008 as the seller and the applicant as the buyer for 40000 M.T. of Iron ore of 63.50% Fe contents at Rs.4,500/- per DMT. Since certain dispute arose between the parties in connection with the said contract the applicant issued notice dated 22.12.2009 calling upon the respondent to refer the dispute to an arbitrator and to agree to arbitration by nominated arbitrator. 5. On 29.12.2009, the applicant filed an application being Arbitration Application No. 20/2009 under Section 9 of ...
Deepak Nanku Singh Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (herein after referred to as “the accused”) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 1st April, 2009, passed by the Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.1/09, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (“the Act” for short), read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo further six months' Simple Imprisonment. The entire fine has been ordered to be paid to the victim girl. 2. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by PW.2 Sunita Moolya, at Quepem Police Station on 23.3.2008, alleging that the accused had kidnapped her minor daughter, FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Act at Quepem Police Station. Pursuant to the said FIR, investigation was taken up. In the course of investigation, it was revea...
Deepak Nanku Singh Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (herein after referred to as the accused) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 1st April, 2009, passed by the Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.1/09, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (the Act for short), read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo further six months' Simple Imprisonment. The entire fine has been ordered to be paid to the victim girl. 2. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by PW.2 Sunita Moolya, at Quepem Police Station on 23.3.2008, alleging that the accused had kidnapped her minor daughter, FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Act at Quepem Police Station. Pursuant to the said FIR, investigation was taken up. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had tak...
Domnic Bento D'Mello Vs. Village Panchayat of Anjuna and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Both the above petitions have been taken up together for hearing as both the learned Counsel point out that the facts in both the petitions are similar though they pertain to two different structures. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. The above petitions challenge the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji whereby an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner to prefer a revision challenging an order passed by the Director of Panchayat came to be rejected. 4. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that initially though certified copy of the impugned orders were collected by the petitioner, but however on account of his depression he had to proceed abroad and immediately after he returned he took steps to file the revision application. The learned Coun...
Laurente Mascarenhas Vs. Jose C. Pereira (Deceased) and His Wife and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 9. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges an Order passed by the Courts below whereby the Petitioner has been held guilty of disobeying the Order of the Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code and, inter alia, directed to remove the loose stones placed after an exparte Order came to be granted in favour of the Respondents by Order dated 21.06.2003. 3. It is not in dispute that the Respondents who are defendants in the suit filed by the Petitioner, moved an application for temporary injunction on the ground that the access claimed by the Respondents was being blocked by the Petitioner by putting up a compound wall. After the exparte Order dated 21.06.2003 came to be served on the Petitioner on the same day, it is the case of the Respondents that in blanket disobedience of the said exparte Order, the ...
Mrs. Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 vide orders dated 31.7.08, 31.7.08 and 4.6.2008, respectively to the post of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools run by respondent No.3 Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while making appointments of respondents No.4 to 7, the name of petitioner was not considered for promotion as required under Rule 74 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (“the Rules” for short) framed under the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (“the Act” for short). It is further the case of the petitioner that all the said appointments have been made in breach of Rule 86, read with Rule 78 of the Rules inasmuch as all the four respondents are not only junior to the petitioner, but also not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appointmen...
Mrs. Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 vide orders dated 31.7.08, 31.7.08 and 4.6.2008, respectively to the post of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools run by respondent No.3 Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while making appointments of respondents No.4 to 7, the name of petitioner was not considered for promotion as required under Rule 74 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (the Rules for short) framed under the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (the Act for short). It is further the case of the petitioner that all the said appointments have been made in breach of Rule 86, read with Rule 78 of the Rules inasmuch as all the four respondents are not only junior to the petitioner, but also not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appointments of the said respondents w...
Laurente Mascarenhas Vs. Jose C. Pereira (Deceased) and His Wife and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 9. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges an Order passed by the Courts below whereby the Petitioner has been held guilty of disobeying the Order of the Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code and, inter alia, directed to remove the loose stones placed after an exparte Order came to be granted in favour of the Respondents by Order dated 21.06.2003. 3. It is not in dispute that the Respondents who are defendants in the suit filed by the Petitioner, moved an application for temporary injunction on the ground that the access claimed by the Respondents was being blocked by the Petitioner by putting up a compound wall. After the exparte Order dated 21.06.2003 came to be served on the Petitioner on the same day, it is the case of the Respondents that in blanket disobedience of the said exparte Order, the ...
Shri Upendra B. Karpe Vs. Revision Authority (Central Government), Gov ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. S. Kamat Malyekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 1 and Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Rule, by consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.1.2011 passed by respondent no. 1 as well as communication dated 5.2.2001 addressed by respondent no. 3 to the predecessor in title of the petitioner rejecting renewal application filed by predecessor in title of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to consider the application dated 20.11.2006 for renewal of mining lease. Respondent no.1 has rejected the renewal application preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rule 54 of the Rules framed thereunder. The same has been dismissed by respondent no.1 by the impugned order dated 31.1.2011 primarily on the gr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »