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.
Naresh Parab, S/O Chandrakant Parab Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao (trial Court), vide judgment of conviction dated 18/10/2005 and the order of sentence dated 24/10/2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 37/2004, held the appellant guilty of the offence under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and sentenced him, in relation to section 302 of I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and in relation to section 307 of I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The F.I.R was registered under Crime no. 94/2004 for offence punishable under sections 302, 307 r/w section 34 of I.P.C, upon the report lodged by Sakharam Ravlu Naik (PW.1). This F.I.R was against two accused persons namely, the appellant as accused no. 1 and one Rajesh Zamble as accused no. 2 and three absconding accused persons. Ac...
Shri Shliston Furtado Vs. the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges the order passed by the respondent dated 23/05/2005 whereby the petitioner has been directed to demolish the structures as mentioned in the show cause notice as the respondent came to the conclusion that such structures were illegal and located within no development zone of the CRZ in gross violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 3. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 2/05/2001 is vague as the survey number mentioned therein i.e. 12/4 of Sernabatim village though the location of the disputed structures has not been specified. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that even in the subsequent show cause notice dated 9/09...
Naresh Parab, S/O Chandrakant Parab Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao (trial Court), vide judgment of conviction dated 18/10/2005 and the order of sentence dated 24/10/2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 37/2004, held the appellant guilty of the offence under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and sentenced him, in relation to section 302 of I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and in relation to section 307 of I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The F.I.R was registered under Crime no. 94/2004 for offence punishable under sections 302, 307 r/w section 34 of I.P.C, upon the report lodged by Sakharam Ravlu Naik (PW.1). This F.I.R was against two accused persons namely, the appellant as accused no. 1 and one Rajesh Zamble as accused no. 2 and three absconding accused persons. Ac...
Andre Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
Oral Judgment : By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Panaji, Goa in Sessions Case No. 16/2009, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “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 compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the victim and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: In the year 2006, the victim PW5 Sweta Zantye was working in the shop “Rohit Vision” at Mapusa as an Accountant. She used to leave her house to go to work at 9.00 a.m. and return home at 7.00 p.m. Her aunt Smt. Satyabhama Bhagkar was staying at Chicalim, Vasco and sometimes, she used to go to her house to stay there. Once, while she was going to Chicalim, the accused sat beside her and sta...
Manguesh Kasturi Pai (Since Deceased) and Others Vs. the Administrativ ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 waives service. 3. All the above petitions were taken up together for hearing as they challenge the common judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal at Goa dated 16/08/2011. 4. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners without going into the merits of the above petition has pointed out that the arguments advanced by the petitioners/appellants were concluded before the learned Tribunal on 11/04/2007 and the impugned judgment came to be passed nearly more than four years thereafter on 16/08/2011. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that such practice on the part of the Tribunal has been deprecated by the Division Bench of this Court whilst dispo...
Smt. Vijaya S. Palekar Vs. Shri Barnado Charlio Lobo and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges an order dated 30/11/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.105/2007/D/C whereby the suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed in view of an application filed by the respondents to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. 3. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the above petition on the ground that the impugned order is essentially an order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and as such according to him the relief which has been granted is in terms of Order 7 Rule 11. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the suit has been dismissed essentially on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of ...
Manguesh Kasturi Pai (Since Deceased) and Others Vs. the Administrativ ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 waives service. 3. All the above petitions were taken up together for hearing as they challenge the common judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal at Goa dated 16/08/2011. 4. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners without going into the merits of the above petition has pointed out that the arguments advanced by the petitioners/appellants were concluded before the learned Tribunal on 11/04/2007 and the impugned judgment came to be passed nearly more than four years thereafter on 16/08/2011. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that such practice on the part of the Tribunal has been deprecated by the Division Bench of this Court whilst dispo...
Antonio Shunit Joao De Erasmo Sequeira and Others Vs. the Revisional A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. Notice to respondent no.1 being Tribunal, is dispensed with. 4. By this petition, the petitioners take exception to the order dated 30/12/2011 of respondent no.1 by which the revision preferred against the order dated 21/10/2009, has been dismissed. 5. The Revisional Authority held that from the power of attorney, it appeared that the power of attorney holder had purchased all the rights in respect of the mine in question clearly in breach of rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules. Respondent no.1 held that the applicants/ petitioners herein had no locus standi to file the revision application. 6. According to Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, several contentions had been raised by the petitioners in the revision application filed by the petitioners as well as in the written submissions f...
Smt. Serolina D'Costa and Others Vs. Antonio Jose Rodrigues and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri C. Mascarenhas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, at Quepem, whereby the counter claim filed by the petitioners came to be rejected essentially on the ground that such counter claim was filed against the plaintiffs as well as the codefendant/respondent no.5 herein. 3. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the written statement along with counter claim came to be filed in the year 1997 when admittedly, the respondent no.5 was not a party to the suit. The learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that as such the question of contending that such counter claim was filed against the codefendant/respondent no.5 herein is totally mispl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›