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.
State of Goa, Represented by the Executive Engineer, Works Division Xx ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Pai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner. 2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/09/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 331/2004. 3. An award dated 19/06/2004 came to be passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the matter of execution of work of construction of road from Murdi village in Village Panchayat of Narva, Bicholim Taluka. The copy of the Arbitral Award was received by the petitioner on 21/06/2004. The petitioner presented its objections under Section 34(2)(a)(v) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short), before the District Judge, North Goa at Panaji, for setting aside the said award dated 19/06/2004. Since there was delay of 38 days in filing the said objections, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, inter alia, alleging that...
Albino Fernandes and Others Vs. Village Panchayat of Siolem- Sodiem Th ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Judgment: Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, by giving advance copy to the learned Counsel for the respondents, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 28/03/2006 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II at Panaji, Goa, in Panchayat Appeal No. 182/2004. 4. The relevant facts, as stated by the petitioners, are as follows : The petitioner is lawful owner in possession of the house“property situated at Tropa Vaddo, Sodiem, Siolem, Bardez, Goa bearing Survey No.215/11-A of Sodiem village. The said property is bounded on the east by a public drain. The petitioner has always had a small compound wall on the eastern part of the said property abutting public drain which wall also served as retaining wall. Due to heavy flow of rain waters through successive monsoons, the said reta...
Vasantrao Sadashiv Lotlikar and Others Vs. Rama Sadashiv Lotlikar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20/06/2011 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge “ I, FTCI, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2010 by which the said appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 14/12/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 136/90/A, came to be dismissed. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit No. 136/90/A whereas the respondents were the defendants therein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in the cause title of said suit. 3. The plaintiff no. 1 and deceased plaintiff no. 2 are husband and wife and plaintiffs no. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) are their children whereas the defendants no. 1 and 3 are brothers being children of the original defendant no. 5, since deceased. The defendants no. 5(a) to 5(f) are the legal re...
Savio Torcato Pereira and Another Vs. State of Goa by the Secretary (R ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.) Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners are the owners of the property under survey no.85/3 of Village Utorda, Salcete Goa. A part of the land on the southern side of the property of the petitioners is being acquired. It consists of a road, four metres in width. Earlier the proposal was to acquire a six metres width road. In a fresh affidavit, the respondents desired to acquire only four metre wide road because that road joins the another footpath which is two metres wide on the southern side of the road. There is a nalla on the east of the road proposed to be acquired. Hence, a two metres wide culvert had been constructed. The acquisition of the further road would necessitate the construction of another culvert or broaden the existing culvert. 3. The road from the petitioners' property continues south and later towards the west to join the main road on the west. There are a number of houses in that patch. The construction of such road w...
Miss Rashika @ Rishigandha Shetye Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 04/10/2011 of Sessions Case No.41/2010, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- found in the account of the appellant-accused is held to be extortion money and direction is given by the learned Trial Judge to pay this amount to the widow of the deceased. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be as follows: The deceased Prakash was the husband of the informant Smt. Prajwalita Gadgil. He was aged about 56 years. He has left behind two sons aged about 21 and 13 years. He was working as the Post Master of Valpoi Post Office. 3. The accused is a resident of Betkekarwada, Valpoi. At the relevant time, the accused was aged about 23 years and she was unmarried. The accused was acq...
M/S Gujarat Sweet Mart, Represented by their Partner Damodar Zaveri Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they involve common questions of law and facts though the period of default is different. 3. By appeal no. 12/2006, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees State Insurance Court, Panaji (ESI Court, for short) in Employees Insurance Case No. 37/2000 whereas vide appeal no. 13/2006, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.02.2006 passed by ESI Court in Employees Insurance Case No. 6/2000. 4. On 01.03.1989 and on 06.03.1989, the ESI Inspector, Shri R. D. Satpute, visited the appellant-establishment and prepared the visit note. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant. By order dated 11.10.1989, passed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, under Section 45A of the ESI Act, the appellant was required to pay contribution of ` 26,030/- for...
Altino Gracias Vs. Pascoal Dias Alias Andre Pascoal Dias (Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1(a) to (c) and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 14 and 15. 2. The above appeal challenges the Judgments passed by the Courts below whereby a suit for specific performance filed by the Appellant in respect of an agreement for sale, executed on or about 20.02.1993, came to be dismissed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit for specific performance and other reliefs was filed by the Appellants on the ground that the Appellant was in need of a plot for the construction of his own house and the Respondent no. 1 was dealing with the sale of the plot of the property known as "Tareachem Bhat", surveyed under no. 83/1 of Camorlim Village of Salcete, Taluka. A Sale Agreement was executed by the Respondent no. 1 on 20.02.1993 with the Appellants to sell a plot admeasuring an area of 450 squ...
Aronio Agnelo Luis Fernandes Vs. Richa Vaz and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bhatkuly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. N. Pimenta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the impugned judgment and order of both the Lower Courts are vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, particularly the deposition at pages 12 and 13 of the DW.1 and that the plaintiff was out of Goa from September, 1991 to November, 1992 and returned only once during this period and that too 10 days after the birth of defendant no.2 and therefore, whether the findings in that regard are perverse? (2) Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit by placing the onus of proof on the plaintiff, when due to the admission of DW.1 and pages 12 and 13 of her deposition, the onus of proof had shifted on the defendants? 3. The appellant filed a suit disputing the paternity of the child which came to be born to the respondent no.1. It ...
Pandurang G. Naik Gaunekar and Another Vs. Nilkant Parshuram MaraThe a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 06/11/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 'A' Court, Ponda on an application filed by the petitioners in Regular Civil Suit No. 99/2012/A for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and counterclaim beyond the period of 90 days and to allow the said application dated 17/04/2013 and consequently, to take on record the said written statement and counterclaim. 4. The respondent no. 1 has filed the said Regular Civil Suit, mainly against the petitioners, for declaration; recovery of Rs.11,27,000/-; interest thereon and for damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The plaint contains about 55 paragraphs, running in about 24 pages. The time limit for filing Written Statement ended on 0...
Mrs. Sebastiao Fernandes Vs. Chandar Barkelo Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Talualikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 5. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/09/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2008/A by which the application dated 02/09/2013 filed by the defendants no. 2 and 3 therein i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 7 herein for opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff no. 1 (PW1) was dismissed. 4. The said Regular Civil Suit No.17/2008/A has been filed by respondents no.1 to 5 or declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents no. 6 and 7. 5. The petitioner and respondent no. 7 have filed their written statement after amendment of the plaint thereby denying the amended paragraph 18-a of the plaint and specifically alleging that they are in possession and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »