Mumbai Goa Court December 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.
Milind Prabhu Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
P.C.:- The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the validity of Regulations No.17.1 to 17.10 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation) being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that Regulation No. 17.5 will have an effect of taking away the business of hoarding, as most of the roads in Goa are having width of less than 10 metres. The learned Counsel submits that the said Regulation is taking away the right guaranteed to a citizen under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The learned Counsel submits that though, in view of sub-section (6) of Article 19 it is permissible for the State to impose reasonable restrictions, the onus is on the State to establish that the restriction so imposed...
Housten Vincent Rebello and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The Petitioners have approached this Court for a writ direction or order quashing and setting aside the resolutions dated 19.08.2009, issued by the Respondent no. 4. 2. The Petition has been amended subsequently seeking a declaration that the resolution passed by Respondent no. 2 dated 7th/8th April, 2007 and 20th/21st May, 2009, wherein Respondent no. 2 had resolved not to approve 10+2 course conducted by National Open School, Respondent no. 6, for admission for Pharmacy course for the purpose of registration as a Pharmacist, is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 3. Various rival contentions have been advanced at the bar. 4. Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the said resolution is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Medical Council of India and the Council for Dental Medicine of India have recognised the said 10+2 course conducted by the Respondent no. 6. It is submitted that...
Smt. Maria Teresa Philomena D'Rocha Pegado Vs. State of Goa, through t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
B.R. Gavai, J. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a declaration that Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002 is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires Section 15(1)(1A)(d)(h) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the quarry lease executed between them and respondents No.3 and 4 on 28th September, 2000. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 12th October, 2004 in interlocutory proceedings in Civil Suit No.133/2004. However, it is submitted at the Bar that now the civil suit itself has been dismissed and first appeal challenging the same has been filed before this Court. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for us to consider the relief in so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are as under: The petitioner claims...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Home Aff ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The petition challenges the order dated 16.04.2006 passed by the respondent no.4 vide which the petitioner has been held to be guilty of charge no.2 and thereby punishment for compulsory retirement from services with full pensionary benefits with effect from 16.04.2006 has been imposed against the petitioner and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed by respondent no.2 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the petition are as under: The petitioner was serving in Central Industrial Security Force as a constable. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at Mormugao Port Trust. On the relevant date i.e. on 30.10.2005 the petitioner was posted at Chowgule gate which is an inner gate to regulate the traffic and normally dock entry permits are not checked at that gate. It is not in dispute that there is a main gate to enter inside the port, which is the gate at which the entry permits are checked....
Domingos A. Fernandes Vs. Baptista Sao Francisco Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-09-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner and Mr. Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. Respondents no. 2 to 12 are absent, though duly served. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 17/10/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Pernem in Case No. DCP/TNC/REV/1-14/10. 4. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 45/2005 against the respondents, for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the issue no. 4 was as under : Whether the plaintiff proves that he is a tenant of the entire suit property bearing Survey No. 272/10 of village Mandrem, Taluka Pernem ? The issues were initially framed on 30/06/2007 and stood modified after the order dated 22/02/2011 and again on 18/10/2011. The issue no. 4 was referred to the Mamlatdar in terms of the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural...
Bento Antonio Gomes Alias Antonio Bento Gomes Vs. Rosario Salvador Car ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
The Second Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (I), South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.83/2002 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.196/90/D dated 19th March, 2002. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The suit came to be filed by the present appellant contending therein that they are the owners in possession of property known as 'Predio Mixto' or 'Mandopa' situated at Mandopa of Nevelim village, Salcete-Goa bearing Land Registration No.44875 of Book B New and enrolled under Land Revenue No.915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is bounded on South by the property of the defendants. The property of the defendants is known as 'Mandopa' and bears Land Registration No.35290 of Book B-91 New a...
Melissa Monica Fernandes Vs. Thomas Aquino Vincent Serrao
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in a suit for annulment of marriage on the ground of coercion it is mandatory to examine the person who has exercised coercion? (ii) Whether the District Court committed an error in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court by just taking a different view of the matter? 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of notice after admission. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14/1/2012 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Matrimonial Petition No.16/2009/A. 5. The said Matrimonial Petition was filed by the respondent against the appellant, herein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are desi...
Mrs. Rosy Pereira and Others Vs. M/S. Crasto Realtors and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Agni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 26/4/2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ponda, in Special Civil Suit No.10/2012/A whereby the trial court partly allowed the application for temporary injunction but refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs thereby restraining the respondents from carrying on with any construction in the suit property and from selling/occupying the flats, etc. 4. The appellants are the owners and occupants of respective flats in "Macedo Apartments" at Tisk Ponda Goa. Respondent no.1 is the petitioner, who constructed the said building whereas, respondent no.2 is the original owner of the plot on which "Macedo Apartments" are situated. The plot is surveyed unde...
Edc Limited Vs. M/S. Penthouse Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4. None present for respondent no.1. 2. In terms of order dated 24/9/2013 passed by this court, respondents were already notified that the petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Menezes waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21/09/2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji ('trial Court' for short) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.143/2008. 5. The petitioner, which is a deemed Financial Corporation under Section 2(b) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (SFC Act, for short) and to which the provisions of Sections 29, 30 and 31 of SFC Act apply, in view of Government of India Notifica...
Waman Mahadev Sawant Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
Oral Judgment: By order dated 22/10/2013, the parties were put to notice that the Appeal may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 3. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the mandate of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. has not been followed by the learned District Court while deciding the Appeal. 4. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31/01/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-I North Goa at Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2011. 5. The said appeal was filed by the respondent against the judgment and order dated 18/12/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, 'C' Court at Mapusa (trial Court) in Special Civil Suit No.14/2000/C. The trial Court had decreed the suit whereas the First Appellate Court has dismissed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »