Mumbai Goa Court September 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.
Pundalik Narayan Xet Pednekar, (Since Deceased) Represented by His Leg ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 397/88/Jr. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the said Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other persons acting on their behalf, from interfering in any manner with the suit access. 3. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows:- They are occupying a house as mundkars situated in the suit property bearing survey no. 229/25 of Calangute Village, for more than 50 years. The suit property is land locked and on the southern side of the same there is a property managed and looked after by the defendants, beyond which there exists a public road. The plaintiffs were always using an access having width of about 3 metres leading from the public road to the suit property, through this property of the defendants since the time they and their family members started occupying the house in the suit property. The said property of the defendants bears surve...
Shamba Sinai Budkule and Others Vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and Land Ac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
The appellants and the respondents (cross objectioners) shall be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the Land Acquisition case No. 137/1998. 2. Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 3. The above appeal and the cross objection are taken up together for final disposal since both arise from the Judgment and award dated 21/4/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 137/1998. 4. Vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the official gazette dated 25/4/1994, land was acquired for the purpose of rectification of curve on Honda - Valpoi road in Sattari Taluka. This included a portion of land admeasuring 775 square metres from Survey no. 104/2 of Village Honda, belonging to the applic...
Thagendra Budhmagar Prisoner Vs. State (Through Public Prosecutor)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Shamba Sinai Budkule and Others Vs. Addl. Deputy Collector and Land Ac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
The appellants and the respondents (cross objectioners) shall be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the Land Acquisition case No. 137/1998. 2. Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 3. The above appeal and the cross objection are taken up together for final disposal since both arise from the Judgment and award dated 21/4/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 137/1998. 4. Vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the official gazette dated 25/4/1994, land was acquired for the purpose of rectification of curve on Honda Valpoi road in Sattari Taluka. This included a portion of land admeasuring 775 square metres from Survey no. 104/2 of Village Honda, belonging to the applicants. T...
Pundalik Narayan Xet Pednekar, (Since Deceased) Represented by His Leg ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 397/88/Jr. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the said Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other persons acting on their behalf, from interfering in any manner with the suit access. 3. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows:- They are occupying a house as mundkars situated in the suit property bearing survey no. 229/25 of Calangute Village, for more than 50 years. The suit property is land locked and on the southern side of the same there is a property managed and looked after by the defendants, beyond which there exists a public road. The plaintiffs were always using an access having width of about 3 metres leading from the public road to the suit property, through this property of the defendants since the time they and their family members started occupying the house in the suit property. The said property of the defendants bears surve...
Thagendra Budhmagar Prisoner Vs. State (Through Public Prosecutor)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Glorio Fabiano Dias Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor and An ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard, Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Gomes, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1. 2. Respondent no. 2 was given legal aid and Advocate Ms. C. Collasso was appointed to appear on her behalf. However, she sought leave to withdraw her appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2, on the ground that all the papers were collected by respondent no. 2 as she wanted to engage a private Advocate. Thereafter, no one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2. Therefore, on 19-07-2012, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no. 2, returnable on 23-08-2012. Respondent no. 2 was served, but she chose not to put appearance, as such I find no other alternative but to dispose of the revision application in the absence of respondent no. 2. 3. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 07-01-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Panaji, allowing the revision application preferred by respondent no...
State of Goa Vs. Nishant Surlekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14/05/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.39/07/C by which the respondent/ accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: On 15/01/2006 at about 4.30 p.m. near Reshma General Stores at Neura, the accused, who was proceeding on scooter bearing no.GA01-Y 3981 from Pillar to Old Goa along with pillion rider Ms. Shama Parab, resident of Shiroda, drove the scooter in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life. When he reached at Piquen Neura, the accused lost control of his motorcycle on the speed breaker and the pillion rider was thrown off and dashed against the...
M/S Polytronic Corporation and Others Vs. M/S Tukaram S. Loliencar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b). 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have decreed the suit when the respondent had not produced the accounts book to prove the payment of amount and establish the liability? (2) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have granted interest @ 20% per annum when the law provides existing rate of interest which could not have been more than 6% per annum? 3. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b) waives service. 5. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No. 156/1999 dated 12.03.2001 whereby the suit filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellants were inter-alia directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,975/- with fur...
State of Goa Vs. Nishant Surlekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14/05/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.39/07/C by which the respondent/ accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: On 15/01/2006 at about 4.30 p.m. near Reshma General Stores at Neura, the accused, who was proceeding on scooter bearing no.GA01-Y 3981 from Pillar to Old Goa along with pillion rider Ms. Shama Parab, resident of Shiroda, drove the scooter in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life. When he reached at Piquen Neura, the accused lost control of his motorcycle on the speed breaker and the pillion rider was thrown off and dashed against the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »