Mumbai Goa Court April 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.
Maximo Antonio Viegas Since Deceased Through His Heirs: and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. Mr. R. Noronha, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The only point which arises for my determination is:- Whether the impugned order dated 29.10.2013, is so illegal and arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Court? 5. Upon hearing both sides, it can be seen that the learned Civil Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which he has in respect of the proceedings initiated in execution of a decree. 6. The decree of the trial Court dated 5.8.2008 has been modified by the First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree passed on 16.8.2010. As per modified decree, the judgment debtors are required, amongst others, to hand over peaceful possession of the suit portion to the plaintiffs/decree holders and also to keep the door at the stair case in question open so as to facilitate to decree holders ingress to and egress from the suit premises. Since vacant possession was not d...
Anthony Fernandes Vs. State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Gomes e Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition, which was admitted on 01/02/2012, is filed against the judgment and order dated 09/11/2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao ('Sessions Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2011, by which the Judgment and Order dated 31/03/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao (J.M.F.C.) in Criminal Case no. 50/S/2006/E, has been upheld, with slight modification. The petitioner was the accused in said Criminal Case No. 50/S/2006/E and shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the accused. 3. A charge sheet was filed by Colva Police against the accused before the learned J.M.F.C. for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) alleging that on 01/08/2005 at 15.20 hours, the accused drove Mahindra Pick-up bearing re...
Amit Anand Pai Raikar @ Amit Pai Vs. the State of Goa, Through Public ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 22/11/2013 in Crime No.168 of 2013 registered with Porvorim Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, 474, 475, 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed the above Criminal Application (Bail) No. 84 of 2014 for bail, whereas the complainant M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited through its Director, at whose instance the said Crime No. 168 of 2013 has been registered, has filed the above Stamp Number (Application) No. 1262 of 2014 praying for leave to intervene in the bail application. 3. A reply resisting the application for bail has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The intervenor has also resisted ...
Yashwant Anant Fadte Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Since the main dispute is between the petitioners and the legal heirs of respondents no. 2, the petition is heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.2(a) to 2(d). Remaining respondents are absent though duly served. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Mr. A. Naik, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.2(a) to 2(d). 4. The point that arises for my determination is:- Whether the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Administrative Tribunal is illegal and against well settled principles of l aw? 5. By the impugned order, the learned Additional President has allowed the application dated 5.1.2012 filed by the legal heirs of respondent no. 2 to drop respondent no. 2 from the proceedings as he was reported to be dead. The only ground stated by learned Additional President for allowing the application is that since deceased respondent no. 2 was proforma respondent against whom no relief was soug...
inacio Amorim V.Dâandeuro;andtrade; Costa, Since Deceased Through His ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Shri Mangeshkar, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1, who is only the contesting party to this petition. 4. The only point which arises for consideration in this case is:- Whether the impugned order dated 16.2.2013 allowing counter claim of respondent no.1 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda is illegal and arbitrary? 5. The facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are stated in brief as under:- The petitioners are the plaintiffs who had filed a suit against respondent no.1 and 2 for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.08.1996 and for damages. Plaint was presented in the month of August, 2007. It was resisted by respondent no.1 who filed his written statement dated 1.4.2008. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.1 revolves around the delivery of second flat, S-2, as a part consideration of the agreement for sale of the suit plot executed between ...
Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. M/S Sadhana Builders Pvt. a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The only point which arises for my determination is:- Whether the impugned order is so illegal and perverse as to call for interference? 3. This revision application challenges order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-2, North Goa, Panaji, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 4. Respondent no.1, being owner of the suit property bearing survey no. 23/1-B, is developing the property by constructing a residential complex. This property is land locked and has access only through one road situated on its western boundary. Road passes through plot of land belonging to the petitioner. It is the contention of respondent no.1 that this road (hereinafter called as suit road) providing access to the suit property is in existence even before the property through which it passes was acquired ...
Zuari Industries Limited and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5, Shri R. Gawas, holding for Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Shri H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.6. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case stated by the petitioners, are that petitioner No.1 is a Company which has an industrial establishment in the State of Goa. Petitioner No.2 is an employee and shareholder of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner no.1. It is contended that respondent No.1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act") dated 5th February, 2007, inter alia, intending to acquire the land bearing survey Nos. 188 (part), 189 (part) and 190 (part), admeasuring 1,81,200 sq. metres for the purpose of expansion of the Sancoale Industrial E...
Ramakant Gajanan Kadam and Others Vs. Abhishek K. Rai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2013 passed by Ad-hoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim restraining the appellants from creating any third party interests in the suit property until further orders. 2. The appellants are the owners of the suit property and respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property against the appellants. He also filed a temporary injunction application seeking a restrainment of the appellants from dealing with the suit property and creating any third party interest therein. 3. It is the case of the respondent that the appellants through their constituted attorney agreed to sell to him the suit property known as œTicteatembavoril Borodo? also known œTikiyachi Teb? or œTikiyachi Temb? admeasuring 46,400 sq. mts situated at Corpal in the village Latambarcem, Bicholim,Goa more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, for a cons...
Simon Laximon Gopi and Another Vs. PaskIn Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Afonso, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16/01/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (Tribunal, for short) in Claim Petition No. 37/2008. 3. The appeal was admitted on 25/06/2010 and hearing was ordered to be expedited. As per the report of the bailiff, on the notices issued to the parties for the purpose of Lok Adalat, it is revealed that the respondent no. 1 has expired. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits that the respondent no. 2 is the sole legal representative of deceased respondent no. 1 and he has no objection if the amendment to the cause title of the appeal is made accordingly. Hence, leave as prayed for is granted to the appellants to amend the cause title accordingly to show respondent ...
Assis J. Fernandes Vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Caste Ce ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated 04/07/2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 207 of 2013 and prays to dismiss the said writ petition. 4. Respondent no. 4 had filed the said Writ Petition for following reliefs: œ(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 08/01/2013 passed by respondent no.1; (b) Issue a direction to quash and set aside the Caste Certificate dated 11/04/2012 and Caste Validity Certificate in favour of respondent no.4 as belonging to OBC.? 5. The said writ petition was thereafter amended and following prayer clause (bb) w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »