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.
Rosarinho D'Costa and Others Vs. A.B. Menezes, Advocate and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. N. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by order dated 31.03.2008 on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether the clauses of the Agreement dated 8.12.1984 executed by the builder with the respondents, which were clearly in excess of the powers/authority given by the appellants to the builder by Agreement dated 31.03.1984 and the Power of Attorney dated 29.03.1984 be said to be binding on the appellants especially when the respondents were aware that the builder's Agreement with the appellants and the Power of Attorney given by the appellants to the builder did not empower the builder to execute such clauses ? (b) Whether it was mandatory for the Appellate Court to have framed issues/points for determination and decide the same while disposing the Regular Civil Appeal No.160/2001 ? (c) Whether the findings of the Courts be...
Ranjana Pathak Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No.26/2006 which was pending before the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 323 and 342 of Indian Penal Code. She is also convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 4(1), 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'PITA'). The maximum sentence of imprisonment given to the appellant is 7 years under PITA. She is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim girl under the provisions of PITA. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The prosecutrix is a Bangladeshi national. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. One Parveen alias Aarti hails from the village of prosecutrix from Bangladesh. Jitendra alias Jitu is the husband of Aarti. Aarti, her brother and father used ...
Luis Sales De Andrade E Souza (Jr.) and Another Vs. Jijabai Namdev Sat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mangeshkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners, who are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit no. 46/2011/C, filed against them by the respondents (plaintiffs) have challenged the order dated 10/10/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, œC? Court at Panaji in the said Suit, thereby granting the application dated 20/09/2013 filed by the respondents for taking on record notarized copy of the declaration dated 06/07/1994 and to exhibit the same and read the same in evidence. 4. Issues were framed in the said suit and the matter was pending for evidence. The plaintiffs filed the said application dated 20/09/2013 for leave to produce the secondary evidence in the form of notarized copy of the declaration dated 06/07/1994, alleging that at the time ...
State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Andrew Francis ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
The appeal is filed against Judgment and Decree of the Civil Suit No.25/2009, which was pending in Court of District Judge, Panaji. The suit filed by the respondents under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 and for directions is decreed in their favour by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the suit can be stated as follows. The plaintiffs are British Nationals. They are retired persons and they want to reside in India for most of their time in their retired life. For the purpose of residence, they decided to purchase immovable property and the owner of house No.172, ward Ranoi, in village Aldona, Taluka and Sub District of Bardez, District North Goa Goa has executed sale deed in their favour of the property admeasuring 925 square metres for valuable consideration. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had presented the sale deed for registration before the registering authority on 30/4/2008. It is contended that...
Liban Maria D'Souza Vs. State represented by the Mamlatdar of Bardez a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Braganza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21/02/2013 and 06/05/2013 passed by the learned Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa Sub-Division Mapusa-Goa in case No. GLPC/ILL/MAP/12/2011. 4. On 09/02/2011, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa alleging that the property known as œBatti? admeasuring about 5387 square metres bearing survey no.111 of Village Oxel of Bardez Taluka was partitioned vide Deed of Partition dated 31/08/1990 between Mr. Luis D'Souza and Mr. Antonio Mariano D'Souza and that the respondent no.2, being the legal heir of Mr. Luis D'Souza, was allotted Part œB? admeas...
Anju Shah Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No.17/2006, which was pending before the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 342, 323, and 366-A of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'PITA'). For offences punishable under Section 8(9) of Goa Children's Act, 2003 also there is conviction. The maximum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years is given under the provisions of PITA and all sentences are to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The prosecutrix is a Bangladeshi national. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. One Parveen alias Aarti hails from the village of prosecutrix from Bangladesh. Jitendra alias Jitu is the husband of Aarti. Aarti, her brother and father used to visit th...
State of Goa Vs. Ganesh Hegde and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: The revision is filed to challenge the order of discharge made in Sessions Case No.24/2012, which was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. The respondents are discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. This Court has perused the entire record of investigation and this Court has also gone through the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The deceased, Vincy was a friend of the respondents. He was aged about 20 years. He had taken a hand loan of Rs.5,000/- from Maruti. 3. The deceased left home on 11/06/2012 and on that day right from beginning he was in the company of the accused. He visited various places where he consumed liquor, food and purchased tobacco with these persons. He left the bar where they had consumed liquor and taken meal at about 12.30 p.m. A friend of Vincy used to call him. On that day, when she realised that Vincy ...
Ashraf Khan Vs. Zaheeda Kazi and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Civil Suit No.20/2005, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Panaji. The suit of appellant filed for relief of specific performance of contract and in alternative for the return of consideration amount is dismissed by the trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents no.2 and 3 are heard. 2. Respondent no.1 was duly served, but she did not turn up. The learned Additional Government Advocate remained present, but there was no interest of Additional Government Advocate, State in the present matter. 3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The suit is filed in respect of property bearing survey no.40/2 admeasuring 4500 square metres situated at Village Ponda (bearing matriz no.575) and old cadastral survey no.17/3 having area of 12300 square metres (together bearing matriz no.429) situated at Khadpabandh, Ponda within jurisdiction of Ponda Municipality, proper...
Anant Kavlekar and Others Vs. Mrs. Milan Dantie Alias Anita Dantie and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether without a finding that the land is assessed to payment of land revenue, the provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. are applicable. 2) Whether it is permissible in law to order the Collector to partition plots, bearing different survey numbers in an Office of the City Survey, wherein there are several buildings. 3) Whether, when improvements/repairs have been carried out and new structures put up on the property by a co-owner without objection, it would be necessary to determine the value of the improvements/repairs carried out and of the new structures before partitioning the land. 3. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15/10/2011 passed by the District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2010, which in turn was filed against the ju...
State of Goa Vs. M/S. Shivani Laboratories and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal of respondent no.5 above-named, vide judgment and order dated 19/04/2010, passed in Criminal Case No. 192/N/96/F/III. 3. For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Magistrate. 4. The State, through the Drugs Inspector namely Ms. Jyoti Sardessai, had lodged the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Margao against five accused persons for contravention of the provision of Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act', for short), which came to be registered as Criminal case No. 192/N/96/III. 5. The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows: The accused no.1 is a Partnership Firm having manufacturing premises at Shirali, Uttar Kannada and is engaged in drug manufact...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »