Court : Mumbai Goa
NareshH. Patil, J. Heard. 2. The Petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the selection and promotion of the Respondent no.4 - Mrs. Sunia Bhandare, to the post of trained Graduate Teacher and prays for other consequential reliefs. 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that in the month of October,1976, she appeared for the Secondary School Certificate examination of the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary. She was declared to have successfully passed the said examination on 01/03/1977. The Petitioner was awarded a Diploma in Education by the Directorate of Education, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (as it was then) after being declared successful in examination of the Diploma in Education (D. Ed.) held in the month of April, 1979. The Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent no.3 vide Order of Appointment dated 09/11/1979 against the post of Trained Arts Undergraduate Teacher in the Sarvodaya High School run by the Respondent no.3. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 7. 2. The relevant facts to decide the above petitions are that the petitioners' father namely late Govind Javlo Gaonkar was recorded as tenant in Form I and XIV in the records of rights in respect of agricultural property surveyed under survey no.297/13 of Loliem Village. The subject matter of the property in Writ Petition No. 792 of 2009 is the property surveyed under no.297/13 whereas the subject matter of the property in Writ Petition No. 793 of 2009 is the property surveyed under No. 297/14 of Village Loliem. The respondent no.1 filed an application to the learned Mamlatdar of Canacona praying inter-alia that the petitioners' father be declared as not a tenant of the suit paddy field and the Talathi of the Loliem Village be directed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri J. Vaz, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certoriari or any other writ or direction, the Order dated 05.08.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, in Execution Application No. 3/05/B. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioners are that the Petitioner, who is the owner of a property bearing survey no. 311/3, situated at Anjuna Village, filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, against the Respondent no. 1 seeking eviction of the house bearing no. 513, situated in the said property. 4. Upon service of summons, the Respondent no. 1 filed the written statement and opposed the said suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed several issues one of them being as to whether the Respondent no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the respective respondents in the petitions. 2. The petitions were ordered to be taken together as the points involved are common as submitted by the counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. The above Writ Petitions seek to quash the orders passed by the authorities below whereby the objections filed to the mutation in the record of rights by the petitioners came to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has essentially raised an objection to the proceedings on the ground that the purchase certificate which has been obtained by the respondents is in the course of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar who was not appointed to perform such duties in terms of Section 2(15) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (herein after referred to as the said Tenancy Act of 1964). The learned counsel pointed out that as the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. The appellant before us faced trial in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009 for offences of sodomy and murder punishable under Sections 377 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and he has challenged the Judgment dated 14/2/2011 and order of sentence dated 4/3/2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in the said case. 2. The prosecution case, in short, was as follows: Between 20.00 hours of 11/05/2009 and 08.30 hours of 12/05/2009, the accused had forceful, unnatural anal sex with Dharmalingam, since deceased, at Palm Grove Apartment, Upper Bazar, Ponda Goa. The accused had tied a jute thread around the neck of the deceased and during the course of having unnatural sex with him, the jute thread was pulled back in the process of deriving lust of unnatural sex as a result of which Dharmalingam was strangulated and he died on the spot. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge explained to him in respect of the said offences and claimed to be tried. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
This revision is directed against the revisional order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa whereby the learned Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing a complaint and directed issuance of process against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this revision are as under:- The complainant, one Mr. Pramod Faterpekar, filed the complaint in his individual capacity, though in the body of the complaint he stated that he was Branch Manager of Sine Fine Advertisement Private Limited, Mumbai and duly constituted Attorney of the Managing Director of the Company Mr. D.K. Bandekar and filed the complaint in terms of the Power of Attorney. The applicants are owners of property bearing Survey No.60 at village Betim. Sine Fine Advertisement Private Limited claimed to have entered into an Agreement with the applicants for permitting the Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case no. 34 of 2006 dated 29.11.2007, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), came to be partly allowed and compensation for the land which was subject matter of the property surveyed under no. 22/2 and 18/0 admeasuring a total area of 6550 square metres was enhanced to Rs.150/- per square metres. After being served with the summons in the above Appeal preferred by the Appellants, the Respondents filed the above Cross Objections and, inter alia, claimed compensation to be enhanced to Rs.400/- per square metre. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a Notification dated 19.02.2003 published in the Official Gazetted dated 21.02.2003, land was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Act at Corjuem Village for the construction of the approach...
Tag this Judgment!