Mumbai Goa Court October 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.
State Vs. Mohanand Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, at Margao, Goa in Sessions Case No.33/2009, by the State. The respondent-accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: It is alleged by the prosecution that between 19/2/2008 to 24/2/2008, the respondent-accused committed murder of Miss Nirmal, on the hillock at Verna and robbed her gold ornaments such as gold chain and a pair of gold earrings. It is alleged that Nirmal was the younger sister of PW.1 Pundalik Amolkar. In the month of February, 2008, Nirmal left the house and did not return back. After 4 to 5 days, PW.1 Pundalik filed a missing report dated 23.2.2008 (Exhibit-13) at Quepem Police Station. When the report was lodged, PW.1 also handed over a photograph of his sister Nirmal to the police. After about 4 to 5 days, cousin of PW.1 Umesh...
Anand S. Lad Vs. Ms. Amira Abdul Razak and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
Heard Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia challenges the judgment dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Eviction Appeal No.17/05 filed by the petitioner/tenants against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Rent Controller at Panaji, in case No. ADDL/RENT/4/94 filed by the respondents for the eviction of the petitioner's mother/original tenant. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that by a lease agreement executed in September, 1967, the grandfather of the respondents leased the suit premises to the petitioner's father for residential purpose. By virtue of a family settlement entered into on 24.01.1989, the respondents became the owners of the property in which the suit premises are located on the first floor of one of the residential houses out of ...
â¦.. Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
F.M. Reis, J. Heard Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The above Suo Moto Writ Petition was registered in view of a submission dated 19.07.2013 by the learned Registrar (Judicial) and Member Secretary of the Goa State Legal Services Authority. The issue raised is as under: Whether a claimant/s, as the case may be, whose claim petition/s is/are referred, to any one of the modes of settlement of dispute, as per Section 89 of CPC and settled amicably, by one of such mode, should be left high and dry in the matter of refund of fees paid as per Rule 278(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, for want of specific provisions under the said rule ? 3. On the basis of the said submission, this Court issued a notice to the Respondents vide Order dated 30.07.2013 and called upon them to file an affidavit with that regard. The stand of the State Government came to be state...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Hede Consultancy Company Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
F.M. Reis, J. Heard Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal was admitted by this Court on 26.09.2006 on the following substantial question of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the transaction of transferring the shares of the group companies at low price causing long term capital loss and sale of shares of Mackhinon and Mackenzie Co. Ltd., at high price, making short term capital gains, thereby setting off the short term capital gains against the long term capital loss, is a colourable device to evade tax? 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondent is a Company engaged in a business of Travel Agency and consultancy. On 02.12.1996, the Respondent filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs.20,38,500/-. On 19.03.1999, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax...
Mrs. Brigida De Souza Alias Brigida Miranda Vs. Julino De Souza
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
F.M. Reis, J. Heard Shri Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal challenges an Order and Decree dated 14.12.2004, whereby Matrimonial Petition filed by the Appellants came to be dismissed as no cause of action survived for the Appellants. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Appellant is that she got married to the Respondent on 05.01.1994 and after her marriage was registered at the Civil Registration Office at Ilhas, Panaji, the Respondent forced the Appellant to leave her job stating that he was worth over crores of Rupees. The religious marriage took place on 14.05.1994 at the Church of Immaculate Conception at Panaji and after the marriage, both started residing at the ancestral house of the Respondent at Grant Road at Mumbai. Thereafter, they shifted to their own flat at Mahim in Mumbai. It is the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent started harassing the Appell...
M/S Resources International and Others Vs. Mrs. Ana Bertha Do Rego E F ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Rule in all the petitions. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders dated 16/11/2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao, by which order, the applications filed by the respondents for being permitted to cross-examine the person, who had sworn the affidavit in the applications filed under Section 149/151 of the C.P.C. i.e. one Dipak Rajani, came to be allowed and the said person i.e. Shri Dipak Rajani was directed to submit himself to cross-examination. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above petitions can be stated thus : The petitioners herein and the respondents were involved in Arbitration Proceedings, which culminated in the declaration of the Award dated 29/03/2008. The petitioners invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arb...
Damodar Mangalji Mining Co. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The appeal arises from a decision of the ITAT dated 02.01.2006 for Assessment Year 1997-98. The appeal filed by the assessee has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the liability to pay additional barge freight arose in the subsequent year on the basis of the letter from GMOEA, even though the appellant follows mercantile system of accounting? (b) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the higher rate of depreciation is available only to trucks given on hire basis and not to trucks given on lease? (c) Whether on a proper interpretation, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in not following the guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in Bangalore Clothing Co. 260 ITR 371 which decision was rendered after Explanation (baa) was inserted in section 80HHC and subsequent to decision in 246 ITR 439 ? 2. Re ...
Maria Benvinda Severina Dias Costa Vs. Lilia Kher and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment:(Naresh H. Patil, J.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5th November 2004 passed by the IInd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge at Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2001. 2. The appellant is the original defendant. In the present case, the Plaintiffs filed a suit with substantive prayer clauses: (a) For a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit property. (b) For a direction to the Enquiry Officer, City Survey at Panjim, to delete the name of the Defendant from the records maintained by the same officer under the Land Revenue Court and to insert the names of the Plaintiffs in the said records. 3. The plaintiffs contended that they are the owners in possession of a property situated at Alto de Pilotos bearing Chalta Nos. 87 to 91 of P.T. Sheet No. 44 of City Survey of Panjim bounded on the east with the lane of steps, on the West with the hill and property of Leonardo Fernandes and others, on the North...
Dena Bank Vs. Thomas Salvador Menezes @ Salvador Menezes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 24/10/2011 passed by the Executing Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji by which order the application filed by the respondent no.1 herein for directing the petitioner herein i.e. the Judgment Debtor No.2 to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lacs (Rupees three lacs only) in the Executing Court came to be allowed. The second order under challenge is the order dated 9/04/2012 by which order the review application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition in brief can be stated thus: The petitioner herein was the defendant no.2 in the suit filed by the respondent no.1 being Special Civil Suit No.100/2007. The substantive reliefs sought in the said suit are as follows: ...
Michael Anthony William Gareth and Another Vs. Mrs. Maria Do Rosario D ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certoriari or any other writ, the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2006, passed by the learned Rent Controller, at Panaji, in Case no. Rent/ARC/4/99 as well as the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal no. 3/2006. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioners are that on 16.08.1999, the Respondent no. 1 filed an Eviction Proceedings before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the Petitioners from the disputed house bearing Municipal no.73, admeasuring 87 square metres surveyed under Chalta no. 141 of P. T. Sheet no. 45 of the City Survey of Panaji, under the provisions of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1968, (hereinafter referr...