Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since they are inter-connected and the suit property claimed by the Government is the same, in both the suits. 2. First Appeal No. 238/2003 has been preferred by the legal representatives of Yeshwantrao D. Chowgule against the judgment, order and decree dated 09/06/2003, passed by learned District Judge South Goa, in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1981(New) / Civil Suit No. 08 of 1974(Old), whereby the said suit filed by said Yeshwantrao Chowgule against the Government of India; Government of Goa; Forest Officers of Goa Government (defendants no. 1 to 5), Comunidade of Balli (defendant no. 6) and one Chandulal Chotai (defendant no. 7) was dismissed. 3. First Appeal No. 45 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment, order and decree dated 03/03/2004, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, in Civil Suit No. 158/1981(New) / 04/1980(Old), whereby the said suit filed by Union of India, through Development ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
The petitioner herein is a student of respondent no.2, college for the stream of Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A.). He is also a sportsman and has represented respondent no.2 in inter-collegiate Table Tennis Tournament. Respondent no.2 is affiliated to respondent no.1, Goa University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the first semester of B.C.A. and cleared all the papers except the paper of Computer Organization and Reconstruction. In that subject he failed to secure the grade for passing i.e. grade "D". He has been awarded grade "F" which is for failure. He therefore applied for verification of his marksheet and learnt that he had secured 34 marks in the subject. The minimum marks required for passing being 40 the petitioner had failed by 6 marks. 3. Admittedly, having represented respondent no.2 in inter-collegiate tournaments the petitioner is entitled to receive 10 marks called "Entitlement Marks". The dispute raised in the present petition is about the mode or manner of all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of Private Criminal Case No.131/2008/B filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner Nos.1to 5 are original accused nos.1 to 5. Petitioner no.1 is the editor of petitioner no.2 magazine. Petitioner No.3 is its publisher and printer. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are some of the authors of the defamatory articles alleged in the complaint. By its order dated 8th December, 2008 the trial Court after its satisfaction that prima facie imputation made in magazine of petitioner no.2 are defamatory, issued process against petitioners herein and accused No.8. The trial Court found that there was no material to proceed against accused Nos.6 and 7. Therefore it did not issue process against them. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application No.51/2009 in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. All these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the Petitioners in these Petitions are challenging the vires of Notification dated 13/08/2009, amended Rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and are challenging the instruction dated 10/12/2009 which had been issued by Respondents on the ground that it is contrary to the proviso to section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act). 2. Petitioners in these Petitions have been granted mining lease of various plots of lands mentioned in respective Petitions and pursuant to the said lease which has been granted, they have been carrying on mining activities and are selling ore of various grades. The royalty payable by Petitioners in respect of the said mining lease is covered by provisions of section 9 read with Second Schedule to the MMDR Act The contention of the Petitioners in these Petitions is that the said roya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner herein is serving sentence for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He had made an application for furlough on 11th March, 2013. That application came to be rejected by respondent no.2 by its order dated 19th April, 2013. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Ms. P. Matkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two reasons given in the impugned order for rejecting the application for furlough are not substantiated by any material. One of the reasons stated in the order is that the possibility of the petitioner creating problems to the family members of the victim/ witnesses who had deposed in this case. The second reason is that the Superintendent of Jail reports that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is not satisfactory. 5. As regard the first reason of apprehension of harassment to the witnesses or fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a common order on the above two petitions between the same parties which petitions have been, by the order dated 7th March, 2013, directed to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Writ Petition No.76/2013 is directed against the award dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of respondent no.1 with full backwages and continuity of service. Writ Petition No.114/2013 is directed against the award dated 11th December, 1998 of the Industrial Tribunal declaring that respondent no.1 along with eight others was a permanent workman of the petitioner with effect from 24th February, 1995. The petitioner is a Mapusa Municipal Council. 3. The factual matrix of the two petitions is as under: Respondent no.1 was engaged as a daily wage labourer with effect from 20th May, 1985. Since respondent no.1 and eight others similarly employed had been continued in service as daily wage workers for more than four years and were be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
By this common order five criminal revision applications filed by the same petitioner are being disposed of. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa that charge be framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 489-B Indian Penal Code in each of the Sessions Case i.e. Sessions Case No.38/2011, 40/2011, 35/2011, 37/2011 and 46/2011. 2. The particulars of the five sessions cases are as follows:(chart)Sr.no.Criminal Revision ApplicationsSessions CaseComplaintFIR No.No. of notesCharge framed u/s 489-B IPC in respect of137/201238/20113/6/2010. By Manager ICICI Bank for counterfeit notes found during period March May 2010 in ICICI Bank, Calangute Branch.122/201075DA 678592 of Rs.500/-238/201240/201113/1/2011. By Manager ICICI Bank for counterfeit notes found during period October 2010 13.1.2011 in ICICI Bank, Calangute Branch'11/2011127AS 875664 of Rs.500/-339/201235/201130/6/2011. By Manager ICICI Bank for counterfeit notes found du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Order: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by respondent no.1 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ("the Act" for short). By virtue of the said order, the petitioner has been detained and kept in central jail, Aguada in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the petition several grounds have been urged in support of the petition. The petitioner also sought for interim relief by way of release on such terms and conditions as this Court deem it fit and proper. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Under Secretary (Home) and an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Appellant has filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.85 of 2002 dated 03/05/2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji was pleased to allow the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda in Regular civil Suit No.81/99/B was set aside. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff who instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Ponda, Goa against the Appellant/original Defendant for restoration of possession and recovery of mesne profit. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant. 4. The dispute was in respect of a structure in the property bearing Hissa No.1088 in Village Panchayat of Shiroda. The case of the Plaintiff is that his grandfather Rudraji Sinai Gude was, during his life time, running a shop in the suit structure LOJ...
Tag this Judgment!