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.
Smt. Vasanati Narayan Naik and Others Vs. Guru Shirodkar Alias Guru Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel, in person and representing Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 and Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 11 and 12. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel and the respective parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The short point for consideration in the above Petition is the legality of the Order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Misc. 138/11/COND/TRA in Tenancy Revision Application no. UN-REG./2011. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay occasioned to the Petitioners to file a revision challenging an Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 29.04.2009 in Tenancy Revision Application no. 25/2008 upholding the Order of the learned Mamlatdar, dated 18.11.2008. 4. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impug...
Milton Coutinho s/o late Jose Claudio Agusto Vs. Antonio Minino Jose D ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No.96/1994 dated 17.03.2011 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner at Exhibit 83 was partly allowed and the prayer for declaration sought to be incorporated by the petitioner was rejected. 5. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the hearing of the above petition has pointed out that the only ground on which the prayer for declaration was rejected by the learned Judge as the prayer was not valued and the petitioner has ...
Krishnan Venugopal Vs. Antonio Joao A. Braganza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/1999 dated 08.06.2007 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit as pendente lite transferee came to be rejected. 3. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the law is well settled that the pendente lite transferee can be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself has filed an application to be impleaded in the suit and any decree in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the application on a spacious ground that th...
Shri Gokuldas Kumbharjuvenkar Son of Late Janardhan Vs. the Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/07/2001 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 29/08/2001 passed by respondent no.1. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: The petitioner was granted licence bearing No.169 by the State Government for wholesale of Indian made foreign liquor in the premises belonging to the Municipality of Bicholim, situated at Bicholim Taluka. The petitioner was also granted licence bearing no.178 for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor/ country liquor in sealed bottles in the same premises. The petitioner was conducting business in the said premises. On 30/06/2001, the officers of the Excise Department conducted surprise inspection of the said premises. The team found certain irregularities having been committed by the p...
Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : “a. for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to carry out and conduct a fair, proper and wholesome investigation into the offences registered vide Crime No.113/2009 of the Pernem Police Station, and thereafter to file a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 3 months, and to take all such other action as law mandates in that regard, or, b. In the alternative for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent No.1 to transfer the investigation into the matter to the CID-Crime Branch, or any such other independent investigating agency, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit; c. That this Hon'ble Court be please...
Krishnan Venugopal Vs. Antonio Joao A. Braganza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/1999 dated 08.06.2007 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit as pendente lite transferee came to be rejected. 3. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the law is well settled that the pendente lite transferee can be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself has filed an application to be impleaded in the suit and any decree in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the application on a spacious ground that th...
Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : a. for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to carry out and conduct a fair, proper and wholesome investigation into the offences registered vide Crime No.113/2009 of the Pernem Police Station, and thereafter to file a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 3 months, and to take all such other action as law mandates in that regard, or, b. In the alternative for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent No.1 to transfer the investigation into the matter to the CID-Crime Branch, or any such other independent investigating agency, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit; c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to ca...
Smt. Padma Srinivas Mahale and Others Vs. Collector and District Magis ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeals No.20/2007, 21/2007 and 180/2007, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No.178/2007, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. All the above appeals were taken up together for final hearing and disposal taking note of the fact that all the Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the issues involved in all the above appeals are similar and, as such, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in all the above appeals, land belonging to the appellants was notified by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 on 16/03/1992 restricting the user of such land under Section 7(b) of the sai...
Smt. Padma Srinivas Mahale and Others Vs. Collector and District Magis ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeals No.20/2007, 21/2007 and 180/2007, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No.178/2007, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. All the above appeals were taken up together for final hearing and disposal taking note of the fact that all the Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the issues involved in all the above appeals are similar and, as such, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in all the above appeals, land belonging to the appellants was notified by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 on 16/03/1992 restricting the user of such land under Section 7(b) of the sai...
Raul Prazeres Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 and 2, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 9/12/2005 whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the disputed structures in the property surveyed under no.266/2 of Mandrem village. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent no.3 on 10/08/1992 issued a permission to the predecessor in title of the petitioner for reconstruction of the existing old house bearing no.435, 435/4, 435/5 and 435/6 in the property surveyed under no.266/2 at Mandrem village. On 5/01/1993, the respondent no.3 issued a reconstruction permission to the said predecessor in title for reconstruction of the existing old ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »