Mumbai Goa Court May 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.
Madhu Sonu Naik Vs. Smt. Ana Rosa Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Advocate Mr. Kakodkar for the appellant and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4. None present for the other respondents, though served. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to judgment and decree dated 15/11/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.30/2001 by which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14/12/2000 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.107/1985/C, has been dismissed. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff in the above suit which was initially filed seeking injunction against the defendants from interfering with the right of way through the property of respondent no.1 Thereafter, relief was also claimed against respondent no.4. Subsequently, the plaint was amended by adding additional paragraph 41(A) in which the plaintiff claims right to purchase three metres wide access way through the property of defendant no.1...
Prabhakar Xembu Bhandari and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2013
Rule. Made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties the petition is taken on board for final hearing. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.78/2011 wherein they had filed an application for amendment of the plaint. That application was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 7th January, 2013. The present petition is directed against that order. 3. In their suit the petitioners have sought five permanent reliefs out of which three are for declarations and others for permanent injunctions. The first declaration sought is that the petitioners have an easementary right of access over survey no.26/2 which is being objected to by respondents no.10 and 11, its present owners. The second declaration sought is that the land at survey no.26/2 consists of hilly area with a steep slope and not within the permissible gradient for development and that Divzam Fator Sati Shila stones cannot be permitted to be destroyed, since they are of sentimental value and historical i...
Smt. Iris D'Mello Alias Iris D'Mello Travasso Others Vs. State of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. Shivan Dessai and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents no. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 555/2009 and for respondents no. 1 to 3 in other Writ Petitions and Mrs. Norma Alvares on behalf of Goa Foundation. 2. Rule in Writ Petition No. 774/2011. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service of notice. Writ Petition No. 774/2011 is heard forthwith, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, along with other petitions, wherein Rule was already issued earlier. 3. By these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the non-grant of NOC by respondent no. 3 to the applications made by the petitioners in each case, for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes under Section 32(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. (the Code, for short). The...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Farmacia Ananta
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2013
This appeal preferred by the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the coolies/hamalies engaged for loading and unloading goods of the respondent in connection with their business are covered within the scope of the term employee as defined under Section 2(9) of the employee's State Insurance Act and whether the ratio as laid down by the Bombay High Court in the Parle Bottling case would not be binding ratio in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Transport and South India Flour Mills case. Whether the ratio laid down by the A.P. Court in E.I.D. Parry case is per incurium considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Rajkamal case? (B) Whether the E.I. Court has ignored and by passed the basic norm governing coverage of the establishment and the definition of employee as contained in Section 2(9) of the E.I. Act and the relevant test that if the hamalies/coolies casual em...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›