Mumbai Goa Court February 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.
Umakant Ganesh Sinai Talaulikar Vs. Dr. Umesh Fol Dessai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 16/11/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa Margao (First Appellate Court), in Regular Civil Appeal no. 113 of 2009, by which the judgment and decree dated 31/08/2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao(Trial Court), in Regular Civil Suit No. 30/1999/D, came to be set aside. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondent is the original defendant in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 30/99/D. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Civil Suit. 4. The plaintiff filed the said suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove himself and all his belongings from the suit premises. The suit premises is a shop bearing no. 66-C(2). The plaintiff is the tenant of two shops premises b...
Motesma D'Silva and Others Vs. Clemente Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04/08/2012, thereby closing the defence evidence and the order dated 31/10/2012 thereby rejecting the application for re-opening the evidence of the defence, both passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 111/2004/A. 4. The petitioners and the respondents no. 3 to 7 are the defendants before the Trial Court in the said Regular Civil Suit whereas respondents no. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 5. After the plaintiffs closed their evidence on 21/01/2012, the matter was posted for defence evidence and after few...
M/S. Rhea Distilleries Vs. the Commissioner of Excise and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 31/01/2013 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa in Appeal No. 16/2011 and has prayed to allow the application dated 31/10/2011 for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. 4. On 24/04/2000, licence for manufacturing of Malt Spirit, Cain Spirit, Grain Spirit and Grape Spirit was issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner. On 01/07/2009, Superintendent of Excise directed the Excise Inspector to inform the petitioner to pay separate licence fees on manufacturing of grain spirit for the year 2009-2010 and also to collect the licence fees on manufacture of grain spirit with effect from 2001-2002 to 2008-2009. R...
Antonio Francisco Ligorio Fernandes and Others Vs. Inacio Filipe Ferna ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 8. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 07/01/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, FTC-II, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2012 and against the judgment, order and decree dated 31/07/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2001/I. 3. The appellants are the plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are the defendants in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2001/I. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for division and demarcation of the suit property and for fixation of separate boundary line in between the southern half and northern half of the suit property including the respective residential portions ...
Mariala Fernandes Vs. Additional Director of Panchayat-i and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 and Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf respondent no. 1. 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 challenged the order dated 02/08/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, FTC-II, South Goa at Margao in Civil Revision Application No. 34/2011. 4. Case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner demolished the old house existing in the property bearing Survey No. 81/2011 at village Betalbatim originally occupied by her and Rosa Maria Ratos and constructed an entirely new house bearing House No. 26 exclusively at her costs and by obtaining all the necessary approvals from the concerned authorities. The Village Panchayat of Betalbatim had issued ...
Dyaneshwar Narso Naik Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has sought a writ of quo-warranto directing respondent No.3 to discontinue functioning as a member of respondent No.2 Village Panchayat and for a declaration that she has been disqualified to be such member and her office has become vacant under the provisions of Section 12(1)(d) r.w. Section 55(4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 3. Respondent No.3 is the elected member of the Village Panchatyat. She is stated to have participated in the meeting concerning a matter in which she has pecuniary interest. That matter was the renewal of construction licence issued to her husband. The licence was initially issued on 10th March, 2010. It would expire on 9th March, 2013. The meeting with regard to the renewal of the licence was held on 16th March, 2013 when the licence had already expired. It was resolved to grant the licence to her husband in the meeting dated 16th March, 2013. The renewal licence was actually gra...
Vishal Shambu Volvoikar Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Respondent No.2 Village Panchayat. Respondent No.3 is an elected member thereof. The petitioner has contended that respondent No.3 has incurred a disqualification to be a member of Village Panchayat by virtue of having pecuniary interest in the subject matter of two resolutions passed in the Village Panchayat meetings held on 3rd July, 2012 and 18th January, 2013. 3. Respondent No.3 has claimed no pecuniary interest in the subject matter of those resolutions. He, therefore, claims that he had not incurred any disqualification. The Court would require to see whether respondent No.3 had pecuniary interest in either of subject matters of the resolutions. 4. One resolution relates to the grant of permission to the licencee of respondent No.3 for opening an Ice-cream Parlour in shop No.137/2 admittedly owned by respondent No.3. The other is the resolution with regard to the NOC of the Village Panchayat...
People's Movement for Civic Action through Its General Secretary, Patr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The petitioners have filed Petition No.403 of 2007 challenging the construction of a hotel by Respondent No.6 upon permission granted by respondent No.2 under orders dated 31st July, 1995, 8th October, 1998, 1st September, 2001 and 17th September, 2005 in respect of a specific plan dated 31st May, 1995 and the renewals thereto. Upon the prayer of quashing of these orders the petitioners require directions against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the original nature of the land upon which they have constructed the hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). 2. Upon having seen that the hotel premises has been constructed in the No Development Zone (NDZ) of the CRZ without the approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF), which is mandatorily required, the petitioners have filed Petition No. 659 of 2010 for quashing the NOCs of respondent No.4 dated 16th September, 2008, 5th July, 2010 and 6th July, 2010 and constru...
State Through Public Prosecutor Vs. Ulhas Kadam
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In this appeal, the appellant/State has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/06/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby setting aside the order dated 9/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji, dismissing the application for an acquittal under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the respondent. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was lodged by the complainant/victim for sexual assault under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against her superior. The alleged act of sexual harassment has taken place at the work place. Pursuant to the complaint offence was registered against the respondent/accused. Plea was recorded, he pleaded not guilty, trial commenced and the complainant/victim tendered evidence and also was cross-examined by the accused. After completion of her evidence, an application under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying stoppage of proceedings was moved on 11/11/2...
Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs. Communidade of Serula, by Its Attorney and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. This PIL Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who is an Advocate practising in this Court as a public spirited citizen to challenge the order of respondent No.3, Administrative Tribunal (allowed to be deleted vide order dated 22/10/2013), dated 27th September, 2012, regularising the encroachment of respondent No.4 and also for removal of the said encroachment and for an order restraining respondent No.4 from alienating the encroached property and using the same for any purpose. 3. The petitioner has set out how respondent No.4 came to encroach and consequently came to be in possession of the disputed property. It was initially an open land. Respondent No.4 put up a shed under the umbrella of a resolution passed by respondent No.1, permitting construction on an area of 9 x 11 metres (99 sq. metres) in survey No.366/6 of Village Sucorro for an annual rent of Rs.600/-. Respondent No.4 was leased an area of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »