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.
Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Mohandas ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Waived. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of the parties. 2. The two appeals are decided by the Reference Court by two separate Judgments on 29/06/2012. However, the parties in these two appeals are the same. The two lands from the same survey no no.4/6 from the same village i.e. Loliem from Taluka Canacona are acquired for the same project i.e. for approach roads to Galgibag bridge on NH-17 (re-alignment) and the evidence tendered by the parties is the same and therefore, these two appeals are decided by this common judgment. 3. The Government has acquired the land admeasuring 960 square metres from survey no.4/6 by notification under section 4 bearing no.22/143/90-RD dated 31/1/1991 and the SLAO has passed the award dated 4/3/1993 at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.metre and also granted the value of trees. The said case was taken to the Collector/SLAO and the original claimant demanded enhanced rate of the compensati...
Amalagiris and Others Vs. M/S. General Nice Mineral Trading Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Grover, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/10/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji ('trial Court') in Special Civil Suit No. 32/2013/A. 4. The respondent has filed the said Special Civil Suit for recovery of money against the petitioners. The summonses for settlement of issues were served on the petitioners on 05/08/2013 for appearance before the trial Court on 07/08/2013. On 07/08/2013, however, the petitioners remained absent and the matter was adjourned to 04/09/2013 by the trial Court, by giving an opportunity to file written statement/reply on that date. Again on 04/09/2013, the petitioners remained a...
Ajay Naik Dessai, Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering Vs. Police Inspe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
Oral Order: 1. Application is moved by the applicant/accused for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicant/accused is charged with the offences punishable under Sections 336,337,338,304 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that a ground plus four storey building collapsed at Canacona on 4/01/2014 leading to 31 casualties. The applicant/accused was holding a post of Municipal Civil Engineer at the relevant time. The building which collapsed was not complete though Occupancy Certificate was granted to the said building on 26/12/2013. The building was constructed for the residential purpose. However, when collapsed, it was not occupied for the purpose of residence. The persons who died and injured in the calamity were all labourers employed by the contractor. The sub quality building m...
M/S Sterling Abodes and Another Vs. Maria Celina Lobo (Since Deceased) ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Thali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2.R ule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 20/08/2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji, in Regular Civil Suit No. 46/2000/C. 4. Petitioners are the plaintiffs whereas respondents are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 46/2000.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for injunction. The said suit was filed in March, 2000. On 11/08/2001, the defendant no. 1 died and her legal heirs were brought on record. On 22/01/2013, the trial Court passed an order directing that the suit shall proceed ex-parte against the defendants. On 18/05/2013, defendants no. 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c)...
K. Ganeshan and Another Vs. Shambu D. Gauns and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the orders dated 16/12/2013 and 22/01/2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pernem, Goa ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2006. 4. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the original defendants in the said Regular Civil Suit No.17/2006 pending before the learned trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their designation in the said suit. 5. The defendants have filed their written statement in the said suit thereby disputing the case of the petitioners. The defendants filed an application dated 21/11/2013 for amendment of the written statement. By order dated 16/12/2013, the learned trial Cou...
Vilas Kashinath Parab Vs. Nashiket Parab and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint no.376/P/2010/D in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa under Section 190(A) of Criminal Procedure Code, thereby praying that the petitioner/accused has committed offences of forgery, cheating and use of false document, thereby punishable under Sections 198, 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner, though was age-barred has fraudulently obtained the Government job by using false birth certificate, showing his age less. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued process under Section 198, 465, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said order of issuance of process was challenged by the present petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.52/2012, before the Addit...
Vito D'Costa, since deceased through Legal Representatives and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 8 and 9. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 06/11/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court') in Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009. 5. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition, are as follows : Respondents no.8 and 9 had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao ('Trial Court') being Regular Civil Suit No.750/2000/C against the petitioners and respondents no. 1 to 7. The petitioners, as defendants no.3 and 4, filed their written statement and counterclaim. Respondents no.8 and 9 then filed their written statement to the counterclaim and also filed additional written statement. Vide judgment and ...
Aradhana Walkade Vs. Chandrashekar Vaidya and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent. This Criminal Writ petition involves a question of law as to whether subsistence of marriage is sine qua non for maintainability of a complaint under section 12 of the offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 2. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 8/8/2001. They had a daughter out of the wedlock. However, unfortunately, the parties were divorced by the order of the Court dated 24/2/2010 passed in Matrimonial Petition No.43/2009/A by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. At the time of granting decree of divorce, the learned Judge did not pass any order of maintenance, as it was not prayed for at the relevant time. However, after the decree of divorce, the respondent/husband out of love and concern was paying the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the daughter to the petitioner August 2011. Thereafter, the respondent/husband stopped paying the sai...
Joao Alias John Fernandes and Others Vs. Bernadina Fernandes and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Narvekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed, by the original defendants of the suit who were appellants in Regular Civil Appeal filed before the District Judge, South Goa along with Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2009 for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal, against the order dated 06/01/2009, passed by the District Judge-2, Margao (First Appellate Court), in the said Civil miscellaneous Application No. 112 2009. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel, limited question that arises in the present appeal is as follows: œWhether the First Appellate Court was competent to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal, on merit when on the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellants and whether the Court was bound to dismiss the application/appeal for want of ...
Sunil Thukral Vs. Tolu @ Tulo Puno Velip and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 19/01/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji in Criminal Case No.OA 107/09/C, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. 2. It is the case of the original complainant that in the month of February, 2008, the respondent/accused approached the complainant for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) and therefore on 26/02/2008, the original complainant gave him loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) on condition that he would repay the said amount within a period of 6 months and if not paid he would pay interest at the rate of 5% on the said amount. At the relevant time, i.e. on 26/02/2008, the original complainant and the respondent/accused entered into an agreement in which the respondent/accused had acknowledged the debt of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »