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.
EdwIn Fernandes Vs. Bhavanidas Nagesh Parkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8/07/2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent/original accused was his friend and he was in need of money due to illness of his mother. So he made a demand of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy five thousand only) for her hospitalisation approximately in the month of June, 2008. The complainant gave amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in June, 2008 by cash against which the respondent/original accused issued postdated cheque dated 12/07/2008 of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), drawn on Madgaon Urban Co-operative Bank, Ponda Branch, in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds on 22/08/2008. The complainant, thereafter, issued statutory notice on 19/09...
Tukaram Kshemchandra Redkar Vs. Sanjay Shankar Mandrekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2014
Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order dated 21/10/2013 passed by the learned District Judge “ I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court) in Election Petition No. 1/2010/I. 4. Since 25/09/1989, the petitioner is working as a primary teacher in a Government Aided School which was managed and administered by Shree Susenashram Education Society (the Society). The said school has been taken over by the Government under subsection (1) of Section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (the Education Act) as from 04/05/2010. The Chief electoral Officer, for the State of Goa, vide notification published in the Official Gazette dated 04/10/2010, under the provisions of Goa Municipalities Act, 1969 (the Municipalities Act), declar...
Fidelis Caetano Teodomiro Filomeno Da Costa Alias Fidelis Da Costa and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 27/09/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa at Margao (First Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 93/2013. 4. Upon the expiry of Placido Joao Joaquim Santo Aleixo da Costa, his son, the petitioner no.1, initiated Inventory Proceedings No. 98/1983/E, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao (Trial Court) to get the estate of the deceased partitioned. In the said Inventory Proceedings, the widow of the deceased namely Delfina Isabel Braganza e Costa was appointed as Cabeca de Casal but as she was old and unable to discharge the duties of Cabeca de Casal, the petitioner no.1 came to be appointed as Cabeca de Casal. The said Delfina Isabe...
The Corlim Citizen Civic and Consumer Forum Vs. State of Goa, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.) Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has taken exception to the construction put up by respondent nos. 10 and 11 on various grounds. The petitioner has cited various illegalities/irregularities. The construction has been completed. The petitioner has filed the petition after the construction came up. 3. With regard to the construction of respondent no.11, the grievance of the petitioner is that the approval of the Town and Country Planning Authority itself is incorrectly granted. That approval is shown in the plan annexed at Exhibit R10/I to the petition ( page 160). The plan has been approved under No. TIS/6934/ COR/TCP/11/838 dated 17.05.2011. It accompanies the technical clearance order passed by the Town and Country Planning Authority dated 17.05.2011. It shows the total area of the plot to be 1600 square metres which is as per the sale deed executed by the developer. The part of the land has been acquired by the Government to the ...
Escolastica Felicidade Carolina Menezes and Another Vs. Remygio D'Mell ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. By order dated 08/02/2013, this Court had directed issuance of notice to the respondents making it clear that the petition shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. In spite of that though all the respondents, more particularly respondent no.1, are served, the respondents are absent. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 20/12/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao whereby the application filed by the present petitioners in Regular Civil suit No. 260/2010/A for recalling PW1 has been rejected. 4. Respondent no.1 has filed the said suit against the petitioners and respondents no. 2 to 10 for declaration, injunction and mesne profits. The petitioners as defendants no. 5 and 6 in that suit have filed their written statement and respondents no. 2 to 10 have also filed written statement, taking appropriate defence a...
Hanumanta Vissu Arsekar and Others Vs. Upendra Narayan Katkar and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. The parties are landlord and tenant. 2. The landlord has leased his premises to the tenant under the deed of lease dated 11.5.1981. The parties agreed in writing inter alia that the lessee (tenant) agreed to "use the leased premises to run paint business as mentioned in clause (7) of the lease." 3. In clause 8 of the agreement, the parties agreed that if the lessee violates any of the clauses of the agreement, eviction would follow. 4. The tenant started the business of paint and later changed it to the business of toys. The landlord claimed to injunct the tenant from starting the business. He claimed that, without his written permission, the leased premises cannot be used for any other business because a specific business is shown in the agreement upon which the landlord has leased the premises to the tenant. He has obtained the necessary injunction. There are concurrent findings of fact. In fact, these are admitted facts. The only substantial question of law that is required to be...
Yeshodi Gauthankar and Others Vs. Telma De Souza Gonsalves
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. D'Silva, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Viegas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether both the Courts grossly erred in holding that the suit toilet is illegal despite of the right provided to the Mamlatdar to maintain, repair, improve or reconstruct the dwelling house and the explanation of the term 'improve' includes construction within the dwelling house like sump tank or overhead tank, water cistern, bathroom, toilet, septic tank, soak pit and the like subject to obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Authorities under Section 7 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975? 2. Whether the Courts below having framed the issue of maintainability of the suit exceeded their jurisdiction in determining the issue without first referring the same to the Mamlatdar under Section 32 of the Goa Mundka...
Madhukar Deu Raut and Others Vs. Ramabai Soma Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who sued for injunction to protect his possession in the suit property. There has been concurrent findings of possession of the plaintiff. In this Second Appeal the appellants/original defendants contend that title of the plaintiff is perversely considered. 2. Three substantial questions of law have been framed as follows: (a) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the Respondents had title to the Suit property was perverse for reasons that the title based on documents produced by Respondents at Exh.PW1 E Colly (Sale Deed and Deed of Declaration) was at variance with the pleadings? (b) Whether the finding that the Appellants had not proved their title to the property "Panas" listed at Item No.3 in the Inventory Proceeding was vitiated as it was based on an erroneous legal concept that allotment in Inventory Proceedings is not a document of title? (c) Whether the finding of possession in favour of the Appellants, based on en...
Gokuldas Kumbharjuvenkar Vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Goa and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Phaldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Orders dated 21/11/2012 and 02/08/2001 passed by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 respectively. 4. On 30/06/2001, the Officials of Excise Department conducted surprise inspection of the premises œManik Wines? of the petitioner situated at Bicholim Municipal Market and took into custody liquor goods, which were allegedly not manufactured by the petitioner and suspecting that they were not genuine. When the panchanama was conducted, Shri Praveen Polle, who was acting as a shop caretaker was present and he signed as one of the panchas. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 04/07/2001 was served on the petitioner. The said cause notice reads as under: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Shri. Gokuldas J....
Village Panchayat Calangute Through Its Sarpanch/Secretary and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Order: (R.S. Dalvi, J.) 1. The Notification no.19/19/DP/PAN/Notification/Part/2012 dated 04.06.2012, is essentially challenged in the above Writ Petitions by two Village Panchayats and by certain Villagers. The exercise of passing this Notification came about in Writ Petition no. 716 of 2009, which is rightly argued by the Petitioners as being the genesis for the issue of the aforesaid Notification. 2. In the Order dated 23.02.2010, the Court saw that the dispute regarding the boundary of the Village Panchayats of Cancolim and Calangute which comes in the way of demolition of illegal structures. The Court called upon the Director of Panchayats to demarcate in loco, the boundary line between the two Panchayats. The Director was entitled to take assistance of the Director of Land Survey (DRSR). The report of demarcation was to be submitted. 3. Thereafter, this Court passed a further Order on 15.03.2010 in further compliance of the Order declaring the local areas of Village Panchayat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »