Mumbai Goa Court January 2013 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.
Mahadev Vs. State Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) The appellant, who is the original accused, is challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 20th September, 2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No.19/2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the judgment and order was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. It was directed that the fine amount should be paid to the mother of the deceased. (Hereinafter, the appellant, shall be referred to as the "accused"). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused was the uncle of the deceased and the families of both, the accused and the deceased, were residing in their ancestral house in separate parts of the house. The deceased was staying in his hou...
M/S Procter and Gamble Home Products Limited Vs. State of Goa, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging order dated 3.1.2013 whereby the goods of the petitioner were seized by the Inspector, Legal Metrology Department by issuing two seizure memos which are annexed at Exhibit A. 4. Brief facts are as under:- The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The dealers of the petitioner M/s CMM Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd and M/s. CMM Logistics Pvt. Ltd are their marketing agents for the distribution of the product manufactured by them. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 visited the godown of M/s CMM Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd and CMM Logistics Pvt Ltd and seized the said product manufactured and processed for the distribution by the petitioner with a direction not to sell the said product until further orders. 5. It is submitted by learned cou...
State Vs. Prakash Wadar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. This is State appeal against acquittal. 2. Both respondents were the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2007. The said case was culmination of a charge sheet filed by Curchorem Police against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 447, 307, 323, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 10/06/2006 at about 18.30 hours at Guddemol, Sanvordem, Sanguem, Goa, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention criminally trespassed into the courtyard of Smt. Sapana Desai, armed with wooden danda and bamboo danda and damaged the scooter bearing no. GA-02/E-0740 belonging to her, assaulted her husband namely Ganaba Desai with the said dandas on his head with intention to kill him and thereby causing grievous injuries to him and when Smt. Sapana and her son Gangesh Desai intervened to help Ganaba Desai, they were also assaulted and they sustained simple injuries an...
Jude E. Pereira Vs. State of Goa, Through the Secretary (Arts and Cult ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate for respondent No.3 and Mr. R. Gawthankar, learned Advocate for respondent No.4. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had initially claimed the following two reliefs : i) For a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, direction or order; directing the Respondents to open the Financial-Bid, and finalize the award of contract for running the Canteen at the 'RAVINDRA-BHAVAN', Margao, before 10th November, 2012; and in any event, before the Petitioner is asked to vacate the Canteen premises. ii) For an Order, restraining the Respondent No.3 from interfering with the Petitioner's running the said Canteen at the 'RAVINDRA-BHAVAN', Margao-Goa, pending the finali...
Bajaj Auto Finance Limited and Another Vs. Ramesh Harishchandra Sinari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents though served. 2. The above Petition challenges the Orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Bicholim, dated 23.10.2008, whereby the Branch in charge of the Petitioner no. 1 has been ordered to be detained in civil imprisonment for not complying with the Decree dated 31.12.2003, passed against the Petitioners. By one Order, the learned Judge rejected the application under exhibit 11 whereby the Petitioners have pointed out that in compliance with the Decree, the Petitioners were delivering the scooter in a good condition. The next application has been filed at the instance of the Respondent, praying, inter alia, for detention of the Petitioners in civil imprisonment for not complying with the Decree. 3. Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order as, according to him, after the Decree came to be passed...
M/S. Menezes Fernandes Enterprises Vs. the Income Tax Officer and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J ): The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the ITAT, Panaji, dated 28/12/2005. The appeal was admitted and the following substantial question of law was framed: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revised return was invalid in law when the said return was filed before the due date for filing the return u/s. 139 (4) of the Act and it could be deemed as a rectified return u/s. 139 (4) of the Act and not a revised return u/s 139 (5) of the Act? 2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as under: The assessee is a registered partnership firm constituted by the partnership deed dated 2/9/1991. At the relevant time, the due date for filing of the return was 31/8/1993. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/9/1993 and the said return declared an unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.2,42,996/- for the assessment year 1993-94. Intimation under section 143 (1) (a) was issued on 21.9.1994 and served on th...
Sadashiv S. Kalsekar Drawing Teacher (Retired) Department of Education ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging order dated 12/06/2001 and are also seeking an appropriate order and direction to fix the pay of the petitioners who were in service upto 31/12/2000 under Part 'B' notionally from 1/1/1996 as applicable to teachers in service on 01/01/2001. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioners were appointed in the grade of teacher/head master on 01/01/1996. The petitioners attained age of superannuation and retired sometime on or before 31/12/2000. It is the contention of the petitioners that by the impugned order the Government had taken a decision that the teaching allowance and special allowances have to be given to teachers who were in service after 01/01/2001 and part 'B' scale was therefore made applicable to those teachers who were in service on or after 01/01/2001. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said cut off date has been fixed in...
Ratnakar L. Parab and Others Vs. Agnelo D'Souza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (a) For issue of a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari vacating the stay granted by the Administrative Tribunal and dismissing the appeal No.3/2008 as not maintainable under Art. 154 of the Code of Comunidades. (b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Government to implement its order of appointing Substitute Committee for the Comundiade dated 13.3.2008. (c) For issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government to initiate criminal action against the Respondents no.1,2 3, 8 and 9 and civil action for recovery of loss caused to the Comunidade. (d) For issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of North Goa, the Respondent no.7 to initiate eviction proceedings against th...
Communidade of Sirsaim and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (i) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order directing the Respondents no.5 to 10 to immediately stop illegal constructions being carried out in the Communidade property. (ii) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order directing the Village Panchayat, the Respondent no.4, to stop illegal constructions being carried on in the Communidade property by exercising power under section 66(3) of The Panchayat Raj Act. (iii) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order directing the Government to give protection to the Communidade under At...
Mrs. Philomena D' Souza Vs. John Janus Barreto
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Anthony D' Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit no. 43/10/A, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner to deposit the licence fee during the pendency of the suit came to be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, I find that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order has come to the conclusion that such claim of licence fee can be made by the Petitioner only after a Decree for eviction is passed in terms of Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge, whilst passing the impugned Order, failed to consider that such claim on the part...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »