Mumbai Goa Court February 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.
The Assistant Defence Estate Officer Vs. Thomas Rodrigues and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Oral Judgment: The present appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, with the consent of learned counsel. 2. Heard the learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Mahesh Amonkar appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel Mr. V. P. Thali appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 27/1/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.12 of 2005. 4. The respondent no.1 was the applicant and the appellant was the respondent no.2 in the said Land Acquisition Case. 5. The parties shall hereinafter be referred in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case. 6. Vide Notification dated 1/6/1990 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act, for short), land was acquired for camp training of recruits of 3 MTR (2 STC) at Cotombi in Quepem Taluka admeasuring 4876 sq.metres from the prope...
M/S D.B. Bandodkar and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the common orders passed by Income Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in Income Tax Appeal No. 191 and 192/PNJ/2011 dated 20.4.2012. By the said impugned orders the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was pleased to confirm the orders which were passed by CIT Appeals who had inturn confirmed the order of assessing officer. Both these appeals were disposed of by common judgment in respect of the Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed returns declaring his total income of Rs.14,31,97,320/- (Rupees fourteen crores thirty one lakhs ninety seven thousand three hundred twenty only). Notices were issued under Section 142(1) dated 21.7.2009 and 31.8.2009 along with questionnaire seeking details in connection with the return which was filed. According to the Revenue, survey was conducted under Section 133(a) by DDIT(Inv), Panaji on 27.9.2006 and certain discrepancies relatin...
Savitribai R. Lotlikar, (Since Deceased), Represented by Lrs: and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they arise out of the same judgment and award dated 12/7/2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao, (hereinafter referred to as the reference Court), in Land Acquisition Case No. 178/1990. 2. The Government had acquired land for construction of fish market at Margao, in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for short). Notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 24/7/1980. An area of 735 square metres out of Chalta No. 76 of P. T. Sheet No. 253 belonging to the original applicant Mrs. Savitribai R. Lotlikar was acquired along with land belonging to some other persons. By award dated 16/2/1982, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O, for short) offered the market rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre, for the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the original applicant filed application, before the L.A.O., ...
Michael D'Souza Vs. Kamal D'Souza Nee Kamal Shambu Surlekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the Courts below dated 19.07.2011 and 09.07.2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte decree in favour of the respondent came to be rejected. 3. Shri Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent are residing in the same apartment at the time of filing of the divorce suit by the respondent and immediately after receiving the summons from the Court in the divorce suit filed by the respondent, the respondent had given an assurance to the petitioner that she would withdraw the divorce suit as according to him, there was no subsisting differences between them. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the sai...
Mrs. Celina Almeida Vs. Minister of Urban Development, State of Goa, w ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and Shri S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 1(a). 2. The above petition seeks to quash the judgment passed by the respondent no.1 dated 29.05.2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.3 was allowed and order passed in Revocation Order No.4/18/TS/2006-CCP/5098 dated 10.11.2006 was set aside. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as required for disposing of the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner raised an objection to the permissions granted by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.3 in respect of the development sought to be carried out in the property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. After issuing a show cause notice, the respondent no.2 revoked the licenc...
Wallace Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India, Through t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) In this petition, Rule was granted by the Division Bench of this Court on 20th September, 1999. Thereafter, this Court was informed that the issue raised in this petition was pending before the Apex Court and, as such, the petitions, on this point, which were pending in various High Courts were adjourned sine die. Finally, Transfer Petition (Civil) No(s). 475-496 of 2003 were disposed of by the Apex Court by order dated 3rd May, 2010 and a direction was given by the Apex Court to dispose of the petitions without any undue delay. The following order was passed by the Apex Court: ORDER. The Transfer Petitions filed at the instance of the Union of India are of the years 2003 and 2006 respectively. The earlier one was last listed before the Court on October 18, 2005, when no effective order was passed. During the long pendency of these Transfer Petitions, it is reported that some of the cases pending before the different High Courts have been disposed of an...
Ms. Sarvinoz Buronova Vs. State and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Order: (V.M. Kanade, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who claims to be close friend of Ms. Nilufar Allabergenova who is citizen of Uzbekistan. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: (A) That a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ, direction or Order in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued directing that the victim girl Ms. Nilufar Allabergenova be produced before this Hon'ble Court. (B) That a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to release Ms. Nilufar Allabergenova from the Protective Home at Merces, Goa on her personal bond. (C) That necessary Orders/directions be issued to the Superintendent of the Protective Home at Merces, Goa to permit the petitioner to meet with her and her advocate Ms. Namrata Shirodkar. 2. After hearing the petition at length we have directed the respondents to produce the girl in the Court today at 10.30 a.m. Brief f...
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (Huf) Vs. T. K. Chatterjee and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The petitioner in this petition is challenging the order passed by respondent no.1 i.e Chief Commissioner of India and also for a appropriate writ directing respondent no.1 to withdraw and cancel order dated October, 2005 and to waive interest amounting to Rs.13,60,762/- ( Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty thousand seven hundred and sixty two only) levied under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act and restrain respondent no. 3 from recovering balance interest amount amounting to Rs.43,078/- (Rupees forty three thousand seventy eight only) and to refund sum of Rs.13,17,684/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs seventeen thousand six hundred eighty four only). 4. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:- Petitioner filed returns of i...
Sonu Alias Madhu Dharma Porob and Others Vs. Rajaram Pandu Fadte, Sinc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment:- Both the above Writ Petitions challenge a common order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji Goa, whereby the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein came to be dismissed and execution proceedings initiated by the respondents were disposed of by directing the petitioners to maintain status quo. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners inter-alia seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from in any way interfering or demolishing the house occupied by the respondents in the property surveyed under no.52/10 of Diwar Village. In the said suit, the petitioners filed a counter claim inter-alia contending that there was an encroachment carried out by the respondents towards the northern and eastern side of the house. After the issues and trial came to be conducted by the learned Trial Judge, by judgment and decree dated 09.07.1996 the suit filed by the...
Rama Xanu Naik Dessai Vs. Menino Salvador F. Coutinho, (Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30/01/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge III, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988. 2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, in brief, are as follows: Land was acquired from survey no. 435/1 of Village Cuncolim, for construction of Police Station and staff quarters, for which compensation of Rs. 1,47,997/- was awarded. Since the ownership of the said acquired land was in dispute, the learned Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988. 3. There were three sets of claimants, before the learned Reference Court. The first was of parties no. 1, 2 and 3 (respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal); the second was of party no. 6(appellant) and the third was of party no. 7(respondent no. 6 of the appeal). The party no. 4 did not file any claim before the Reference Court and also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »