Mumbai Goa Court October 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.
M/s. Devdatta P. Shirodkar Vs. The Chief Engineer, Western Zone II, Ce ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
1. Heard Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this application, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short) the applicant has prayed for appointment of an arbitrator and to make an order of reference of disputes listed in Exhibit B. 3. Facts as stated by the applicant are as under: The applicant is a proprietary concern and a building contractor. By tender acceptance letter dated 25/05/2012, the respondent no. 2 awarded to the applicant the work of Construction of two Nos. additional floors over the existing office building for Registrar of Companies at EDC Complex, Patto, Panaji, internal electrical installations and fans, etc. A formal agreement No. 7/SE/GCD/2012-13 was executed between the applicant and the respondent no. 2. Clause 25 of the said agreement is the arbitration clause. On account of a fundamental breach of contrac...
Dea Lima Gomes Alemao and Others Vs. Aurora Silva e Diniz and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4. 2. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24/10/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-4, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2000. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/04/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao (trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 247/1973/F. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed by the First appellate Court. 3. The appellants no. 1 and 2 and respondents no. 5 to 15 are the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 whereas the appellants no. 3 and 4 were the plaintiffs no. 3 and 4 in the said suit. The respondents no. 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 was ...
Antonio Gonsalo Amaral Fernandes, Laboratory Assistant now Assistant T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals, since common question of law and facts arise in both. 2. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. These are plaintiffs' appeals against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 and 18.06.2005, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-1, Panaji (trial Court, for short), respectively in Regular Civil Suit No. 146/97/B (old): Civil Suit No. 72/2004 (new) and Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old): Civil Suit No. 69/2004 (new). Parties shall hereinafter to be referred as per their status in the said suits. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suits for declaration that they are entitled to:- i. Higher scale of Rs. 290-500 as against lower scale of pay of Rs. 260-460 from the date of their appointments; ii. Higher revised pay scales of Rs. 330-530 in terms of Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education) Ci...
Indira Sawant and Others Vs. Vijayendra Umakant Sheth and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellants-claimants seek enhancement of compensation in respect of death of one Vinayak Sawant i.e. husband of appellant No.1 and father of other appellants. He was working as a Head Clerk and expired in a road accident on 11/8/1997. At the time of his death, he was working as Head Clerk with the State Government. The fact that he left behind him widow and four children i.e. total five dependents is not in dispute. Similarly the quantum of amount awarded towards hospitalisation is also not under challenge before this Court in the present appeal. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Lotlikar with Ms. Patil, for the appellants and Advocate Shri Bharne, on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Nobody has appeared for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Advocate Lotlikar has submitted that as number of dependents was 5, by following the settled position in this respect, deduction on account of personal...
Inox Leisure Limited Vs. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel waives service of behalf of respondent. 3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company challenges the order dated 07/09/2013 passed by Principal District Judge, Panaji (PDJ hereinafter) allowing the application at Exhibit- 20 for amendment of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. The earlier orders passed by this Court showed an effort being made to dispose of the matter finally at the stage of admission. It is not necessary to narrate facts for present adjudication. Pendency of application filed under Section 34 of above mentioned 1996 Act by the present respondent challenging the award dated 28/12/2009 by Arbitrator is not disputed. The application seeking leave to raise additional grounds vide Exhibit-20 came to be filed in the month of January, 2012 i.e. more than two years after the filing of Section 34 applicati...
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Vs. Fomento Barges Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. On 12.3.2007, the appeal has been admitted on the following two questions as substantial questions of law:- "A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction of purchasing shares over and above the quoted rate of shares amounts to excess payment, without consideration and therefore deemed to be gift made under Section 4(1) (a) of the Gift Tax Act 1958? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the purchase of shares by the assessee over and above the quoted rate without consideration and therefore attracts Gift-tax under section 4(1)(a) read with section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958?" However during the arguments, it is not disputed that answer to second question is contingent upon the first question and accordingly, parties have advanced arguments only on first question. 2. Learned counsel for the revenue has taken us through the order of CIT (Appeals) to urge that in fact a loan transaction has been camouflage ...
Shripad Gawas and Others Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
Oral Judgment: (Mohit Shah, CJ.) 1. This Writ Petition has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of reference dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The reference arises in the context of the Government of Goa, Directorate of Health Services, Group C, Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted Posts, Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for short, "the Recruitment Rules"). 2. The Rules are made in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The posts are mentioned in the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules. Rule 3 provides that the method of recruitment to the posts, age limit, qualifications and other matters connected therewith shall be as specified in Columns 5 to 13. Rule 5 confers power on the Government to relax any provisions of the Recruitment Rules with respect to any class or category of persons. 3. In this writ petition and reference, we are only concerned with the post of Sanitary Inspector. Relevant columns...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›