Mumbai Goa Court January 2014 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.
Jose Fernandes and Another Vs. Marcelina De Gama and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28/01/2013 passed by the District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa at Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No.193 of 2011, and the judgment and decree dated 15/10/2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge-II Senior Division, Margao (trial Court), in Regular Civil Suit No. 320/2000/II(New) : Special Civil Suit No.113/1980(Old). 3. The appellants are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said Suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises and of the land where the defendants have erected a cow shed and a hut, by removing the said structures; for permanent injun...
Bhakta Bahadur and Others Vs. Inspector General of Prisons, State of G ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J. These writ petitions arise upon letters of three prisoners who have been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and are serving their sentences. They challenge the deduction of 50% of the wages earned by them which have been appropriated to the Common Victims Compensation Fund, which has been created under Section 36-A of the Prisons Act, 1894, as amended by the Prisons (Goa Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Rules framed there-under being the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006. 2. One Tommy Thomas who was convicted under the NDPS Act was allowed the entire of the wages earned by him, without deducting any amount towards the Common Victims Compensation Fund. Thereafter, another prisoner also convicted under the NDPS Act, Basudev Joshi, was not allowed the entire wages. Fifty per cent of his wages came to be deducted under the aforesaid provision of the Act and the Rules. An order came to be passed by N.A. Britto, J., as he then was, on 24...
Conceicao Fernandes and Others Vs. Basilio Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 04/05/2013 passed by the District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2010, and the Judgment and Decree dated 10/11/2008, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao (trial Court), in Special Civil Suit No.22/2002/A. 3. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said Special Civil Suit for declaration that the encroachment done by the defendants in the year 1996 and thereafter constitutes trespass in the property of the plaintiffs and for direction to the defendants to remove the suit encroachment and give vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. 5. Case of th...
Antonio Menezes Vs. Vithola Shamba Shetye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Heard Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28/06/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28/2012/A filed by respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/1979/A. 4. Said Regular Civil Suit No. 3/1979/A has been filed by the petitioner and respondents no.8 to 12 (plaintiffs) against respondents no. 1, 6 and 7 (original defendants) for: (a) declaration that the defendants have no right whatsoever to the said property and that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the same; (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents and representatives from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the plain...
Francisco Coutinho and Others Vs. Communidade of Canacona
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeals came to be admitted by order dated 19.11.2007 on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court could have reversed the order of the trial Court which has recorded a finding of fact that the appellant herein was in possession of the property coupled with the survey records, without the respondents establishing their title and long possession over the property ? (b) Whether the First Appellate Court overlooked the fact that the suit property and the parties being the same and the issue in both the case being directly and substantially the same i.e. in the suit No.39/90 and the present suit, the decree in No.39/90 acted as res judicata? (c) Could the First Appellate Court overlook that the respondent and its officers had not fulfilled the mandatory require...
Coiro Malgo Velipo, (Deceased) Represented by Lrs. and Others Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court in favour of the original plaintiffs, decreeing the suit for injunction which was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs' suit is for injunction against the defendants restraining them from carrying on with plantation of any nature at a place called Tudou, in village Verlem, and interfering with the plaintiffs' plantation. The plaintiffs claimed to be owning a vast piece of land consisting of various villages of which boundaries were given in the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed to be growing paddy, coconut trees, fruits and having various gardens therein. The plaintiffs claimed their title under a Sale Deed dated 26th December, 1952. The plaintiffs claimed that their employee one Surya Shankar Gaunkar used to supervise the property. 2. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were staying in the place called Tudou. The defendants were allowed to erect their huts for residential purpose a...
Communidade of Morombi-opequeno Vs. Luis Sales De Andrade E. Souza and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether erroneous appreciation of the documents and the evidence on record vitiated the findings and which resulted in grave injustice to appellants?? (2) Whether the District Judge was justified in upholding the ownership of the plaintiffs to the suit property when they did not produce any Sale Deed to show the details of the property purchased and the extent of ownership and whether the same in any manner concerns the suit property ? 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service of notice after admission. By consent heard forthwith. 4. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 21/12/2012 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-I, (FTC), Panaji ('First Appellate Court', for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of...
Chidambar Ramesh Chanekar and Another Vs. Navanand Ramesh Chanekar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T. George John holding for Mr. Dukle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10/11/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao-Goa in Regular civil Suit No. 215/2011/E, whereby the oral request of petitioner no. 1 (defendant no. 1) for time was rejected and cross-examination of P.W.1 (plaintiff no. 1) by him was closed and the cross-examination of PW1 by respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 2) was closed since she as well as her Advocate were absent. 4. Petitioners are defendants in the said suit whereas respondents are the plaintiffs. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit No. 215/2011/E for declaration, permanent injunction and seeking ...
Mohammed Alif Laila Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Peter Alias Pedro Fernandes and Others Vs. Piadade Rodrigues, and His ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Vengurlekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Melo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal has been admitted on 13.07.2007, on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether it is absolutely necessary to make prayer in the plaint for declaration regarding the existence of right of easement by prescription and if such prayer is not made, whether the suit solely seeking permanent injunction, is bound to fail? 3. During the course of the hearing of the above Appeal, Shri Melo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has argued in support of the Cross Objection filed by the respondents. After hearing both the learned Counsel with that regard, the following additional substantial questions of law are framed by consent of the learned Counsel : (a) Could an easementary right by prescription be declared by the First Appellate Court, when a specific bar is created under section 17(b) of the Indian Easeme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »