Mumbai Goa Court March 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.
Kashi Dairy and Restaurant Vs. Peter Tellis and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Vengurlekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, whereby a suit filed by the appellant for damages came to be dismissed. 3. Mr. Vengurlekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that though the evidence on record discloses that the respondent no.4 who is a practicing advocate was present at the time of the morcha nevertheless, the learned Judge has erroneously refused the damages claimed by the appellant. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant was falsely implicated in an allegation of rape against the victim who was working at the relevant time in the establishment of the appellant. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents with a common intention illegally organized the morcha and trespassed into the suit premises of the appellant thereb...
Prabhakar Sakharam Patnekar Vs. Dy. Collector (L.A) and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal arises out of the Award passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court- 3, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No.19/2006 in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The relevant facts are: The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 7/4/2003 for acquisition of various lands including the land which is the subject matter of the present appeal. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.metre. The appellant being dis-satisfied had filed reference and claimed that he is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.305/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court considered the matter and rejected the claim of the appellant mainly on the ground that the acquired land is within the set back area of the State Highway and unfit for construction. In view of this, the Reference Court did not consider the sale instances in respect of the properties which accord...
M/S. Kulmaya Minerals and Transport Contractor and Another Vs. M/S. Me ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Nandkishore Dubey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. The petitioners, by this Revision Application, have challenged the judgment and order dated 21/12/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, South Goa at Margao ('Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 68/2012. By the said judgment dated 21/12/2013 passed in the said Criminal Appeal, the judgment and order dated 12/06/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama ('Trial Magistrate') in Criminal case No. 80/OA/NIA/2010/A was maintained. 4. The petitioners were the accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively, whereas respondent no.1 was the complainant in the said Criminal Case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case No. 80/OA/NIA/2010/A. 5. Facts g...
State, Through Police Inspector Vs. Rupesh Dabolkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal. 3. The respondents (accused) were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 35/S/2003/A for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504, 506(II) r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The said case was a culmination of a charge sheet filed by Quepem Police alleging that on 21/09/2002 at 22.30 hours at Ganesh Shetkar Shop, Cotto, Amona junction, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Shri Sameer Naik (PW2) by catching hold of his T-shirt and hands and assaulted him with soda bottles on his head thereby causing simple injury to him and further gave him bad words and also threatened to kill him. 4. The respondents had pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned Judicial magistr...
Joaquim Vicent Coutinho (Deceased) and Others Vs. Menino Salvador F. C ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. R. Gawas, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 (a) 4(b)( i to vi) and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and legal heirs of respondent nos. 6 and 7 ( i to v). 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10.07.2007 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 120/2000 whereby a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as œthe said Act? ) was disposed of by directing the compensation awarded to be paid to the respondents herein. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land admeasuring 475 square metres was acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing a sump pump house in the Village of Cuncolim of Salcete Taluka bearing survey no. 435/1 of Cuncolim Village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the said Act but however, the appellants as well a...
Laurinda Gomes and Others Vs. Janu Hari Gaude and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 21.09.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the appellants together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,81,163/- after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by order dated 27.06.2002. 3. Upon being served with the summons, the respondent no.2 filed cross objection challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has refused compensation on the basis that the business income of the deceased of running of a b...
Randolf Savio Philips Vs. Florence D'Souza
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent though duly served. 2. Admit. Heard finally in view of the notice issued by this Court for final disposal at the stage of admission, vide order dated 25.7.2013. 3. This appeal raises a short question which is as follows:- Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit instituted under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (œthe FMA, 1969? for short) read with Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954( œthe SMA, 1954? for short) in view of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 1998 on 19.6.2000 in the case of Monica Variato Vs. Thomas Variato, 2000(2) Goa L.T. 149? The appellant herein has contended that his marriage with respondent was solemnized under the provisions of the FMA, 1969. It appears that some matrimonial dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent as a result of whic...
Gurvir Inder Singh Vs. Marina Paes Also Known as Merilia Paes and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. This appeal is preferred against an order passed on 07.08.2013 by the learned District Judge-1, Mapusa, in Civil Suit No. 5/2012, thereby rejecting the applications for interim reliefs as per Exhibits 4, 5 and 6. 3. The short point involved in the appeal is :- whether the discretion exercised by learned District Judge-1, Mapusa in refusing injuctory reliefs to the appellant is arbitrary and perverse? 4. The case of the appellant is that he is the tenant of respondent no. 1 in respect of House No. 1150 at Ximer, Candolim, (herein after called as œsuit house?) since November, 2010 on monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. It is the case of the appellant that the suit house has been let out to him for residential and commercial purpose. He has submitted that in the past, respondents no. 1 and 2 had attempted to evict the appellant, therefore, a police complaint was filed by him. The matter, however, was compromised on 12.01.2011. 5....
Deputy Collector (Dev) and Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Za ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. G. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. Shivan Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.9 to 13. 2. The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 16/11/2005 passed in Land acquisition Case No.30/1991 whereby a reference preferred by the respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the œsaid Act?) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.306/- per square metre. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that: Pursuant to the Notification dated 18/2/1982 under Section 4 of the said Act, land belonging to the respondents was acquired admeasuring an area of 20210 sq.metres from property surveyed under nos. 132/3, 132/4, 135/1 and 141/2 situated at Miramar, Panaji City for the purpose of parks, recreation and development of ...
State, (Through Cid Crime Branch, Panaji.) Vs. John Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal. 3. The respondent (accused) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court), in Sessions Case no. 11 of 2010, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 504, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The said Sessions Case No. 11 of 2010 was a culmination of charge sheet filed by Colva Police against accused. The charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 I.P.C. only, and the substance of the charge was that at or about 02.30 hours on 02/12/2009, near Maria Hall, Benaulim and in the car (Captiva Black Colour) bearing No. GA-09/D-0001, the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix, a Russian National and thereafter caused the evidence connected with the of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »