Court : Mumbai Goa
Heard the petitioner in person and learned Advocate General for the respondents. 2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (A) For a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, directions or any other commanding the Respondent No. 3 to withdraw Order Ref. No. 4/1/2008/LD-Esst./217 dated 12.2.2013 and Order Ref. No.14/1/2008/LD-Estt./398 dated 14.3.2013. (B) For a Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside order dated 6.6.2013, passed by the Special Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 22/2013, after calling for records and proceeding and examining it for its legality, proprietary and correctness. 3. Petitioner, in short, has alleged as follows: The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 04/02/2013 with respondent no. 4 against Shri Manohar Parrikar, the Chief Minister of the State of Goa alleging th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard. Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Registry to register the STM No. 3000/2013 as Writ Petition, forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has mainly sought the following reliefs: a) Grant of writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03/10/2013 passed by the Learned Additional President of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji and dismiss the application for stay bearing Misc. application No. 226/2013 in LRA No. 49/2013; b) Stay the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 03/10/2013 and direct the Learned Additional President to return the records and proceedings of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 9, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 12 and Mr. Vernekar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 10 and 11. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16/03/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa, whereby the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit D-4) filed by the appellants in Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012, has been dismissed. 4. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012/C. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. 5. Plaintiffs have filed the said Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012/C for declaration, specific p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The appellant-accused has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th/5th June, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), South Goa, at Margao in Sessions Case No.8/2008, thereby convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentensing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: The accused and the deceased were residing in the same locality. It is the prosecution case that the accused, deceased and their friends celebrated a Christmas party on 25th December, 2007 and when the party was going on, the accused and the deceased left the party to consume some liquor in the bar of one Chandrakant alias Raghunath PW.9; that they consumed liquor at the bar and thereafter left the bar. The dead body ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr. P. Phaldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : (a) That the records and proceedings of the case no. MAM/BAR/MCA/4/07 before the Mamlatdar of Bardez and case no. MCA/AC-II/REV/02/2013 before the Additional Collector-II at Panaji be called for and upon perusing the same, this Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 28/03/2013 and 20/09/2013 passed therein. (b) That this Court be pleased to direct the Mamlatdar of Bardez to hear and dispose off the Petitioner's application under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/accused and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 07/07/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sattari at Valpoi in Criminal Case No. 61/OA/2010. 3. The appellant was the complainant, whereas respondent No. 1 was the accused in the said case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said criminal case. 4. The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (The Act, for short). 5. The case of the complainant, in short, was as follows: The accused is his relative and a Government employee and needed money and approached the complainant re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, only on the challenge to the impugned order dated 18/8/2011. 2. Amongst other prayers, in this Criminal Revision application, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 18/8/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.33/2011. 3. In Criminal Case No.127/OA/138/2009/C, the applicant was the accused and he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (One lakh thirty thousand only) to the complainant within forty days and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 4. Against the said judgment and order of conviction, the applicant had presented an appeal before the Sessions Judge and since there was a delay of abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23/12/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-I, FTC I, South Goa at Margao in Regular Appeal No. 65 of 2011 by which the judgment dated 18/01/2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Marriage Petition no. 1/2001/A has been quashed and set aside and the Marriage Petition has been dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of Marriage Petition no.1/2001/A. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said Marriage Petition for dissolution of marriage between him and the defendant under Article 4(1) and (5) of the Law of Divorce and for direction to the Civil Registrar of Salcete at Margao to cancel the entry in the register of marri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : This is State Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13/12/2010, of acquittal, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, in Criminal Case No.168/S/2009/F. 2. The respondents were the accused persons in the said Criminal Case No.168/S/2009/F and it was the case of the prosecution that on 29/10/2008 at about 15.45 hours both the respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, called the complainant namely, Dharma Bhosle to Tinto Britona by giving him call on his mobile and after the said Dharma reached at the said place, they assaulted him on his head with iron knuckle pad and thus voluntarily caused him injuries. The respondents were charged with the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined all together witnesses. The case of the respondents was of denial simplicitor. They did not examine any witness in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by reduction of their pay scale in the scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 from Rs.4500-125-7000. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under: The petitioners came to be appointed by respondent no.1 University from 1/06/1994 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. After successful completion of probation, the petitioners came to be confirmed on 4/07/1996. On 31/03/1997, the petitioners came to be re-designated as 'Senior Laboratory Assistants' in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. On 10/02/1999, the Executive Council of respondent no.1 University framed Recruitment Rules and prescribed pay scale to the Laboratory staff. The post held by the petitioners i.e. the 'Senior Laboratory Assistant' was granted pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. The petitioners were granted this pay scales with effect from 27/02/1999. From 30/03/1999, the petitioners were awarded the benefit of the 5th pay commission. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!