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.
Mrs. Ursula Renha Rumaldina Soares and Others Vs. Mrs. Fatima Conceica ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. R. Menezes, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for respondent no. 4. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition the petitioners challenge order dated 25/4/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 219/2011/C by which the application dated 11.4.2012 for restoration of the suit qua defendant nos. 4 and 5 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 4. The petitioners filed the above suit against respondents/defendants seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunctions. Record discloses that on 26.3.2012 notices were issued to defendant nos. 4 and 5, but copies were not given by the plaintiffs. On 9.4.2012 learned trial Judge dismissed the suit as against newly added defendant nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that no ste...
Antonio Vicente Lucas Vs. Smt. Maria Mendes Alias Maria Joana Mendes a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court by order dated 1/09/2006 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in view of issue no.1, viz. “the Defendants prove that they are deemed owners of the paddy field surveyed under no.219/37 of village Quelossim, Taluka Mormugao, Goa”, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Judge to refer the same to the Mamlatdar for decision, in view of the provisions of G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and whether the failure on the part of the lower Courts below to do so, have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed the suit against the appellants inter alia for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in any manner in the suit property which is surveyed under no.21...
Smt. Maria Antonetta Pereira E Miranda and Others Vs. the Society of t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. None for the other Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.11.2006, whereby a reference preferred by the Appellants under Section 18 of 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 dated 10.09.2003, land belonging to the Appellant admeasuring an area of 2500 square metres from the property bearing P. T. Sheet no. 16, Chalta no. 8, Sub-division 4 of Margao City, was acquired for the purpose of constructing a school complex. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.04.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer, offered a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre besides a sum of Rs.13,400/- for th...
The Bagayatdar Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Vernon Vaz
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15/01/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda in Criminal Case No.101/NIA/2009/C acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the accused in the above case filed by the appellant for dishonour of the cheque dated 12.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.1,74,430/-. 3. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued the above referred cheque towards part payment of the loan availed by him. The cheque was delivered by the respondent on 12/11/2008 to Mr. Dayanand Chari. The defence of the accused is that a signed blank cheque was given by him at the time of sanctioning the loan agreement along with the other cheques and the said cheque was misused by the complainant to recover the money which is not due a...
The United Goans Shanti Concern Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. We are not inclined to entertain this petition as prayed in view of the Judgment in the case of, SaraswatiIndustrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 460, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general ...
Smt. Maria Antonetta Pereira E Miranda and Others Vs. the Society of t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. None for the other Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.11.2006, whereby a reference preferred by the Appellants under Section 18 of 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 dated 10.09.2003, land belonging to the Appellant admeasuring an area of 2500 square metres from the property bearing P. T. Sheet no. 16, Chalta no. 8, Sub-division 4 of Margao City, was acquired for the purpose of constructing a school complex. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.04.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer, offered a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre besides a sum of Rs.13,400/- for th...
The United Goans Shanti Concern Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. We are not inclined to entertain this petition as prayed in view of the Judgment in the case of, SaraswatiIndustrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 460, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, w...
Antonio Vicente Lucas Vs. Smt. Maria Mendes Alias Maria Joana Mendes a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court by order dated 1/09/2006 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in view of issue no.1, viz. the Defendants prove that they are deemed owners of the paddy field surveyed under no.219/37 of village Quelossim, Taluka Mormugao, Goa, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Judge to refer the same to the Mamlatdar for decision, in view of the provisions of G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and whether the failure on the part of the lower Courts below to do so, have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed the suit against the appellants inter alia for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in any manner in the suit property which is surveyed under no.219/37. The said...
New Era Shipping Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income And#821 ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in summarily setting aside the decision of Commissioner with respect to the issue of partial denial of deduction under Section 33AC of the Act and in remanding the same to the file of the Commissioner without assigning any reason therefor and ignoring the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganesh Builders (116 ITR 911)? (b) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not deciding the pure question of law with respect to legality of the reassessment proceedings urged before it under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 instead of remanding the same back to the file of the Commissioner? 3. Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. Taken up for f...
Sheikh Shabbir Vs. Shaikh Yusuf
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant ('the accused') takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Criminal Case No.66/OA/NIA/09/C acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The accused approached the complainant with the proposal that he wanted to extend his business of processing quick and quality photo film processing, by purchasing New Digital Film Processing Unit, Konica 808 Gold, run by him under the name and style “F. M. Studio” and requested the complainant to invest an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in the said business. The accused also assured the complainant that the business would fetch good profits and the complainant would get...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »