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.
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...
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...
Anant Bondre Vs. Alfred David Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. G. Teles, learned Advocate for appellant, Mr. J. Godinho, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mrs. M. Pinto, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges judgment and order dated 6.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao in Criminal Case no. 1117/OA/NI/05/D by which respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( 'the Act' for short). Respondent no.1 was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act on account of dishonour of cheque dated 20.4.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The Judicial Magistrate by the impugned Judgment and order has acquitted the accused for the said offence. 4. Although several contentions have been raised by Mr. Teles on behalf of the appellant, it is not necessary for me to consider the same inasmuch as the appeal is liable to be disposed of on very short point. 5. In para...
The Colva Civic and Consumer Forum and Others Vs. the State of Goa Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Alvares, learned Amius Curiae, Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 3, Mr. Teles, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 and Mr. Lawande, learned Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. By this petition, 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 thereby commanding the respondent no.2 to immediately arrange for and set up a garbage dumping/ Sanitary Landfill and Solid Waste Management site for the villages of Colva, Vanelim, Sernabatim and Gandaulim in accordance with the provisions of the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1996 and the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Rules, 1997. (b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent no.2 to immedia...
Gunaji K. Govekar Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary Home an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3 and further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to re-instate the petitioner back in service with all back wages and other statutory benefits. 3. In the year 2000, petitioner was working as Police Constable. On 1.8.2001, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner under Police Subordinate Service (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1975 ( 'the Rules' for short) alleging that the petitioner had turned hostile in a Criminal Case. The petitioner filed reply. Respondent no. 5 submitted report to the disciplinary authority, i.e respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 issued memorandum dated 29.1.2002 stating that he tentatively agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was called upon to show cau...
WoodwIn Interior Decorators and Furnitures and Others Vs. George Peter ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudin M.S. 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 passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 16/12/2011 passed in Eviction Revision Application no.8/2011 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected and the learned Tribunal has allowed the application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of 30 days and on failure to do so the Rent Controller was directed to stop all proceedings and hand over the possession to the respondent herein. 4. Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that th...
Gunaji K. Govekar Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary Home an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3 and further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to re-instate the petitioner back in service with all back wages and other statutory benefits. 3. In the year 2000, petitioner was working as Police Constable. On 1.8.2001, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner under Police Subordinate Service (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1975 ( 'the Rules' for short) alleging that the petitioner had turned hostile in a Criminal Case. The petitioner filed reply. Respondent no. 5 submitted report to the disciplinary authority, i.e respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 issued memorandum dated 29.1.2002 stating that he tentatively agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was called upon to show cau...
Anant Bondre Vs. Alfred David Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. G. Teles, learned Advocate for appellant, Mr. J. Godinho, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mrs. M. Pinto, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges judgment and order dated 6.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao in Criminal Case no. 1117/OA/NI/05/D by which respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( 'the Act' for short). Respondent no.1 was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act on account of dishonour of cheque dated 20.4.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The Judicial Magistrate by the impugned Judgment and order has acquitted the accused for the said offence. 4. Although several contentions have been raised by Mr. Teles on behalf of the appellant, it is not necessary for me to consider the same inasmuch as the appeal is liable to be disposed of on very short point. 5. In para...
Ramrao Venkatrao Rane Vs. Sanjay Rane and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Prasheen Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned District Judge-1 dated 25/01/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to produce two documents viz. one survey plan and the other Deed of Gift and Adoption dated 24/01/1908 came to be dismissed. 4. Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that whilst remanding the matter before the learned District Judge this Court by judgment dated 10/12/2010 passed in First Appeal No.184/2004 had given liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner came across the said Deed of Gift only therea...
Dinanath Rama Naik, (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
S.A. BOBDE, J. Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Since a learned Single Judge, Lavande, J being unable to agree with the judgment of the Division Bench in Mrs. Damayantiben Shivaji Chauhan V/s Dr. Dinesh Parekh and others reported in All India Rent Control Journal 1988(1) 520 having regard to the view taken by the another Division Bench in Maria Madeira e Fernandes V/s Vishnu Mahadeo Kanekar, reported in AIR 1987 Bom. 240 has referred the following question. “Whether in an appeal preferred by a tenant against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, is maintainable, at the instance of the landlord on the ground that the tenant has not deposited the rents due during the pendency of the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal ?” 3. Section 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »