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.
Rajendra Halarnkar Vs. Anastazia Maria De Lourdes Ana Florentina De Fr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06/12/2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa (Trial magistrate), in Criminal Case No. 858/2010/NIA/B, whereby the accused came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short). 3. The appellant is the complainant whereas the respondent no.1 is the accused in the said criminal case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 4. It was the case of the complainant that with a view to purchase a property admeasuring 8375 square metres, situated at village Aldona, at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square metre, from the accused, he had paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to her as advance payment and a Memorandum of Unders...
Sikandar Axamani Vs. State of Goa, as Represented by Officer-in-charge
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
1. Heard Mr. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant under Legal Aid Scheme and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/05/2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Panaji, (trial Judge) in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2007. 3. A charge sheet was filed by Ponda Police before the learned J.M.F.C. Ponda against the appellant (Accused) for offence punishable under section 286 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) read with section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (the Act). Since the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Panaji. Charge was framed and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty. 4. The charge against the accused was that on 25/01/2006 at 12.30 hours at Naga Masjid Ponda, he negligently handled explosives in the rented room ...
Pramukh Closures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deora Associates, Partnership Firm and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Silva, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and Mr. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5. 2. Leave is granted to file the appeal against the impugned order. Criminal Misc. Application No. 207/2011 stands disposed of accordingly. Registry to register the appeal, forthwith. 3. The appeal stands admitted. 4. Mr. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 waives service of notice on behalf of the said respondents, after admission. By consent heard forthwith. 5. It is seen that when the impugned order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao (trial magistrate), the other respondents, namely respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) were not served. In the circumstances above, there is no need to send notices of the present appeal to the said respondents (accused persons). 6. By this appeal, the appellant, who is the compla...
Dattaguru Amonkar Vs. Kala Academy Goa, Through Its Member Secretary a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (Z. A. Haq, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Supekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. M. Furtado, learned Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the Recruitment Rules which according to the petitioner are illegally modified in 2006 and because of which his entitlement for the promotion to the post of Programme and Development Officer (in short 'PDO') is affected. The case of the petitioner is that in 2004 when the post of PDO had fallen vacant no candidate from the feeder cadre was eligible for that post and, therefore, the respondent no.3 Dr. Kale, was given an additional charge of PDO for a period of two years. Mr. Supekar, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the resolution by which Dr. Kale was given an additional charge makes a specific reference to the fact that the candidate eligible for the post pf PDO wou...
Milagres Sales Coutinho Vs. Maria Angelica Da Costa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.06.2012, passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 125/2007 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao thereby, dismissing the suit of the appellant brought for recovery of money due under a mortgage. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under:- The suit was filed by the appellant against the respondents for recovery of money, which was based upon the right acquired by him in a transfer of mortgage, by the original mortgagee, Dr. Francisco da Piedade Abranches. It is the case of the appellant that he was entitled to recover the money due in this mortgage from the respondents. The trial Court framed four issues and answered three issues in favour of the appellant and dismissed the suit by recording a negative finding on th...
Corporation of the City of Panaji, by Its Commissioner Vs. the Deputy ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
1. By order dated 06/03/2013, notices were issued to the respondents by putting the parties to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the award dated 27/02/2012 passed by respondent no.1 in Case No. XVI(6)DC(LA)/2008 and has prayed for a consequent direction to respondents no. 3 to 6 to return the money received by them under the impugned award with interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. 5. An area of 3000 square metres comprised in a quarry, falling in R-Zone, at Dona Paula and located opposite the British Cemetery, from Chalta No. 1(P) of P.T. Sheet No. 188 of City Survey, Panaji, recorded in the name of respondent no. 6, was notified by Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) for sanitary land fill site at Panaji for...
Gasper Fernandes and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4, Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 and Shri Raghunandan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 6. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the acquisition initiated by the Respondent-Government to acquire a portion of the property surveyed under no. 169/10 admeasuring 201 square metres situated at Betalbatim Village, to rehabilitate the Respondent no. 4 in view of his displacement of a portion of a property acquired for the construction of a road by a Notification dated 16.03.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners claim to be a share holder of the Communidade, Respondent no.3 herein, and has filed the present Petition to protect the interest of the Communidade on the...
Ashok Teofilo Vaz and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through, Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This petition is directed against an order passed on 18.03.2013, passed in Civil Suit No. 76/2010, by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Panaji, thereby partly allowing the amendment application of the petitioners and partly rejecting the same. 3. The civil suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking various reliefs including the relief of mandatory injunction ante against the respondents. During the pendency of the suit, it was learnt by the petitioners that Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of suit property came to be issued by Government of Goa and it was also learnt in response to the query made by the petitioner under R.T.I. Act that respondent no. 4 was not a Government Contractor, who carried out the work at the suit property at the instance of the Government and therefore, the petitioners sought amendment to their pleadings by incorpora...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›