Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondent no.1. Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with for the reasons stated hereinafter. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of criminal case no.37/S/2011/B pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Quepem. The petitioner is facing charge for offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 Indian Penal Code. It is a State prosecution. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 14th January, 2011 an accident occurred at Paddi Bus Stop between two vehicles i.e. the car being driven by the petitioner and the motorcycle being driven by respondent no.2. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner of driving his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashing it against the motorcycle causing grievous injury to the motorcycle driver. It is the case of the petitioner that he is serving as a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the Impugned Communications dated 6/12/2004 and 20/12/2004 (ANNEXURE H collectively to this Petition); b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to award the Petitioner benefit of ACPS in terms of Memorandum dated 22/2/2001 with effect from 22/2/2001 or at least 1/6/2001 along with all consequential benefits like arrears, re-fixation of pension, etc.; c. In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the Petitioner re-fixation of the Petitioner's last pay drawn by carrying on the exercise of stepping up of pay under FR 22 or principles analogous thereto, from such date as the Petitioner's juniors were placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200, i.e. with effect f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the Parties. 3. The petitioner herein is serving sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 452 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. He has completed over 12 years of sentence during which period he has been released on parole on four occasions and on furlough on five occasions. On 4th February, 2013 he filed an application for grant of parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that his mother has to undergo surgery of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (Bilateral). That application came to be rejected by Inspector General of Prisons on the ground that his conduct in jail is not satisfactory since he has been punished along with other inmates from cell No.13 in terms of Rule 358(a)(1) of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and on the ground that there was no emergent situation for releasing the petitioner on parole. 4. Ms. Poulekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th July, 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, Goa, acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 87(F) of Goa Public Health (Amendment) Act, 2005. 2. Respondents are alleged to have stocked for sale Goa 1000 Gutkha and RMD Gutkha containing tobacco as one of the ingredients, the stock and sale of which is prohibited in State of Goa, in their premises VS-22 Venor Plaza, Calangute, Bardez Goa. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29th April, 2006 the inspector appointed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 visited the premises of respondent no.1 where respondent no.2 was present as a vendor. On inspection, the inspector found 25 sealed packets of Goa 1000 Gutkha and 8 sealed packets of RMD Gutkha kept in the shop. Since the articles contained tobacco, the sale, manufacturer, distribution and stocking of which is prohibited in the State of Goa under Section 87A(1) and 87A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Order: These two petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondents under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners contend that the proceedings filed are gross abuse of process of law. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner in the first petition, Mr. Lath, is a Director of the Company by name M/s. Valmark Developers Pvt. Ltd., (herein after referred to as 'the company'). The petitioner in the second petition, Mr. Tolia, is a businessman. The respondent no.1 herein had advanced a sum of Rs. 25 Crores to the company and Mr. Tolia for acquiring exclusive mining rights in respect of Iron ore mines situated in Karnataka. The amount of advance was agreed to be returned by exclusive sale of Iron ores from the mines to respondent no.1. The advance had been made in the year 2009 by issuing two cheques, one dated 26th September, 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up on board for hearing. 2. Heard Shri N. Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. This petition seeks quashing of the complaint dated 15th October, 2009 filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short). The respondent is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). The complaint is sought to be quashed on the ground that the respondent is not authorised to take any action under the Act. 4. Shri Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners by making reference to Section 12 and Section 2(e) of the Act submits that the action, if any, could be taken only by the State government or by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State government. 5. Section 12 of the Act provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Advocate Mr. Rao for the appellants and Advocate Mr. Ramani for respondents no.2 to 4. None appears for the other respondents. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellants/ original plaintiffs take exception to the judgment and decree dated 17/11/2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No.63/1994 by which the appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 25/04/1991 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, has been allowed. 3. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed the above suit against the respondents/ defendants simpliciter for injunction, claiming that they were the owners in possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property O.P.P. 2. Whether the defendants have interfered into plaintiff's possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15/4/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 693/2008; order dated 4/9/2007 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 61/2002 and order dated 4/3/2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Case No. BLDG/162/ARC-I/85 (BLDG/24/ARC-II/95). 4. The Respondents had filed an application dated 31/10/1985, under Section 22(2) (a) and (g) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act, for short), for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on the ground of nonpayment of rents, which they claimed to be Rs. 300/- per month and denial of the title of the appellants. Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Parties were put to notice that the appeal would be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard Mr. Keni, learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Joshi, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent. 3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 31/7/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 46/2009, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. Case of the appellant was that on 24/10/2008 at about 9.30 a.m., when she was returning home after attending Mass at Archbishop's House at Altinho and while she was walking on the pavement in front of that building, near All India Radio building (Akashwani Kendra), a dash was given to her by TVS Victor motorcycle bearing registration no. GA-03-A-1375, ridden by the respondent, rashly and negligently, due to which she sustained grievous injuries, resulting into permanent disablement. She had filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to allot Plot No. 4 in survey no. 57/1 of Village of Pilerne, belonging to the Communidade of Pilerne (Respondent no. 2 herein). (AA) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a declaration that Explanation 1 to Article 334-A of the Code of Comunidades is ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was a Government servant working in Goa Medical College as Staff Nurse, who retired on 31/8/2004. In the year 1980, she had applied for a plot bearing no. 4 under survey no. 57/1 of village Pilerne belonging to respondent no. 2, for the purpose of constructing a residential house. According to the petitioner, she was ful...
Tag this Judgment!