Mumbai Goa Court December 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.
Collin Curry and Others Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-24-2014
F.M. Reis, J.1. Heard Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 4 and 7, Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 5.2. The above Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India essentially seeks for a writ of mandamus or a writ in a nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to inter alia take action against the Respondent no. 5 to demolish/remove the structures put up on Vainguinim beach in the form of a Jetty, Shed for the Water Sports Activities, etc., to remove the constructions and the development carried out by the Respondent no. 4 in the Public Nallah between the properties surveyed under nos. 803 and 804; to order the removal and demolition of the structures referred to in the sketch marked as annexure 'F' in survey no. 246/2; to forthwith stop the...
Ramesh Bhartu and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
1. Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 3 and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Charge Sheet No. 12/2012, filed by the respondent no. 1, based on F.I.R. No. 168/2003 and consequently, to quash and set aside criminal proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, bearing No. IPC/213/2013/A against the petitioners and others.4. The said charge sheet has been filed under Section 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) against the petitioners and one another. The complaint was filed by Shri Mohandas Ramdas, Manager (Recovery) of the respondent no. 2 against the petitioners and seven others alleging that the accused persons hatched criminal ...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashwita Arvind Poll and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 9/2006. 3. The appellant was the respondent no. 3-insurance company; the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants and respondents no. 4, 5 were respondents no. 1 and 2 who were respectively the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The claimants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the claimant no. 1 and the father of the claimants no. 2 and 3. 5. Case of the claimants, in short, was as follows:- The husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 and 3, namely, Arvind Poll, ag...
Far Pavilions Tours and Travels Private Limited through its Director, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
U V. Bakre, J. 1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the appeals since they involve common facts and questions of law. By consent of the parties, the present appeals are taken up for final adjudication at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. These appeals are directed against the order dated 17/12/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suits No. 23/2010/B and 24/2010/B. 4. The appellants are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suits. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suits. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suits for eviction of the defendants from the suit property respectively described in each suit; for recovery of arrears rent, damages, etc. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the...
State of Goa Vs. M/s. Shivani Laboratories and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
1. Heard Mrs. Pinto, 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 respondents no. 1 and 5 above-named, vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mapusa (J.M.F.C., for short) in O. A. Criminal Case No. 10/1997 (old) : O. A. Criminal Case No. 250/1999/D (new). 3. For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Magistrate. 4. The State, through the Drugs Inspector namely Mr. Raghuvir D. Bhise, had lodged the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Mapusa against five accused persons for offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a), sub-section (c) of Section 17 and subsection (d) of Section 17-B, punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act', for short), which came to be registered as...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Barad and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The above First Appeal and cross-objection are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 11/03/2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Taluka of Salcete at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short) in Claim Petition No. 93/2000. The appellant was the respondent no. 3 (Insurance Company) in the said Claim Petition whereas respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 (Cross Objectors) were the Claimants therein. Respondents no. 4 and 5 were respectively the driver and owner of Mini Bus No. GA-02/T- 4348 which was insured with the appellant. Parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said Claim Petition. 3. The claimants had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs. 26,10,000/- on account of death of the husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 and 3, in a motor vehicular accident. 4. Case of the c...
Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell), Altinho and Another Vs. Joao ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Ms. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30/04/2009 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 25/2007. The respondent was the applicant and the appellants were the respondents. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case.3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 20/11/2003, the Government acquired land for construction and B/T of road at Pulwado, Mandowado, Pequeno Pedda to Domximod and Bhirondi, in Village Panchayat of Benaulim, Salcete-Goa. This acquisition included a portion of land admeasuring 1650 square metres from Survey No. 65/1 situated at Benaulim village, belonging to the applicant. By award dated 29/...
Ravindra G. Kalangutkar (since deceased) represented by Roshan Ravindr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
1. Instant second appeal is presented by the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 54/2002/A dated 3rd October, 2005, confirmed by the District Judge-2, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.57/2006 on 9.8.2007. The appellant-original plaintiff presented a suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of survey No. 260/4 of Village Mayem. According to the plaintiff, the possession of the property has been taken over by the plaintiff on the basis of a lease agreement from the family of one Silva Noronha. The said property, along with some other properties of Silva Noronha family, were declared as evacuee property. The name of the Government of Goa is recorded in the survey records in the occupant's column. It is the contention of the plaintiff that in recording the name of one Prabhakar Vittu Kalangutkar, an error was committed showing him as having rakhan of...
Chandravati Sagun Ghadi and Others Vs. Anil Chopdekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 02/04/2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short) in Claim Petition No. 65/2007. The appellants were the applicants in the said Claim Petition whereas the respondents were the respondents therein. Respondents no. 8(a) to 8(c) are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 8. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the sad Claim Petition. 3. The applicants had filed the said Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- on account of death of Shri Sagun Ghadi, the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of applicants no. 2 to 5, in a Motor Vehicular Accident. 4. Case of the applicants, in short, was as under: On 23/10/2006, the deceased, husband of the applicant no. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 to 5, was pillion rider on the motorcy...
Sofia Coutinho e Paes and Others Vs. The Honourable Minister for Munic ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners are questioning constitutional validity of Section 184D of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides for a remedy of an appeal to the Government against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, made in an appeal under section 184 confirming, modifying or annulling an order made or notice issued under the Act. 2. All the petitioners were parties to the appeal proceedings presented under Section 184B to the Appellate Tribunal, wherein an order issued under Section 184 of the Act was subject-matter of challenge. On a decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B, a further appeal is provided under Section 184D of the Act which has been dealt with and disposed of by the Minister for Municipalities, Government of Goa. 3. An appeal against an order issued under Section 184 of the Act is entertainable by the Appellate Tribunal, as provided under Section 184B of the Act. Sub-Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »