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.
Narendra Pandurang and Another Vs. Shrikant Shambu Volvoikar and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. J. Cardozo, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 on merits. 3. Both these petitions are connected with each other and challenge trial Courts orders dated 2.8.2013 rejecting the applications filed under Order 14 Rule 3 of CPC for production of documents on identical grounds and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. After hearing both sides, the only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is:- Whether the orders dated 2.8.2013, rejecting production of additional documents are so perverse and arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 5. On going through the impugned orders, it is seen that the only reason stated therein is that one of the documents that was sought to be produced in evidence, a plan drawn in the year 1982, did not find any mentio...
Benaulim Civic and Social Forum Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, Mr. M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Mr. Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.8. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The above petition came to be filed by the petitioner taking exception to the construction being put up by respondents No.7 and 8 in their respective properties situated in the Village of Benaulim. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the construction activities being carried out by the respondent No.8 are without obtaining the requisite permissions from the Statutory Authorities. The other grievance raised by the petitioner was that the construction was being put up in violation of the CRZ Notification, 1991. In the rep...
Silvestre D' Souza and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certiorari the corrigendum no. 22/27/2003-RD dated 23.02.2005. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Petitioners with the consent of their mother in law, purchased part of A2 and no. A3 of the property bearing survey no. 7/2, wherein a dwelling house was located from Shri Nachinolkar and his wife. After the said purchase, an application came to be filed before the local Panchayat for a licence of construction of a compound wall around the said two parts bearing no. A2 and A3 purchased by the Petitioners. In the meanwhile, on 24.04.2003, the Respondent no. 1 issued a Notification dated 24.04.2003 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), showing their intention to acquire prope...
Communidade of Balli Through Its Attorney Shri Shankar Fal Dessai and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. The suit property came to be acquired by the Konkan Railway for putting up the railway track running through the length of Goa. A part of the track is claimed to be in the possession of several parties. The acquiring authority deposited the entire compensation which had to be apportioned between the parties. The acquisition is accepted. Claiming compensation by various parties is denied by others. Consequently Land Acquisition Case (LAC) was filed by the relevant SLAO. All the parties filed their written statements claiming possession and/or ownership. Their claims have been considered in the LAC. It is from the order of the learned Third District Judge, Margaon in the LAR Case that these first appeals have been filed. 2. There were seven parties who claimed compensation. Their claim of compensation has been considered upon raising issues with regard to their possession and/or ownership. Since all of these parties have separately challenged the order of the learned Judge in the LAC ...
M/S. Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. South Goa Planning and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
1. Heard Mr. C. Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. M. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice bearing no. SGPDA/P/5112/2145/12-13, dated 25/01/2013 issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioners as to why the Development Permission granted to the petitioners vide order No. SGPDA/P/5112/1411/10-11 dated 29/10/2010 should not be revoked and the order dated 26/06/2013 passed by respondent no. 1 thereby revoking the said Development Permission. 4. Case of the petitioners, in short, is as follows: Petitioner no. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and petitioner no. 2 is its Shareholder and Director. The petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the property bearing Chalta No. 71 of P.T. Sheet No. 238 of City Sur...
Rashid Salvador Sousa Vs. the State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed in April 2013, the Petitioner has challenged : (a) the orders dated 30 November 1988, 8 September 1993, 20 May 1996 and 11 September 1996, and other orders passed by Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka in South Goa District in the years from 1992 to 1996, declaring Respondent no.3 Victor Luis Monteiro as tenant of the properties in question in Goa described in para 2 of the writ petition ('the properties'). All these orders were passed by the Mamlatdar under the provisions of Chapter-IIA of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Goa, Daman and Diu Act 7 of 1964) ('Tenancy Act' for the sake of brevity) read with the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967 ('Special Rules' for the sake of brevity) declaring Respondent no.3 as tenant of the properties; (b) œthe consequential impugned orders? permitting Respondent no.3 to sell some...
Village Panchayat Surla and Others Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. N. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. The above petition came to be filed in public interest espousing the cause of the farmers of Surla Village due to the mining activities undertaken by the respective mine owners namely respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16. This Court passed an interim order on the basis of the minutes of the order which were duly signed by the concerned parties. The said minutes of order is dated 08.08.2007 and reads thus: (1) The learned counsels appearing for the Respondent no. 8 to 14, 16 and 17, state that the balance portion of the Nullah up to the bayem bridge remaining to be de-silted, shall be completed on or before 30th May, 2008. The learned Advocate General assures the Court that the Executive Engineer/Canal Officer of the Water Resources Department, shall supervise such balance work of de-silting and file a repo...
Shrimati Shrirang Naik and Others Vs. Vijaykant Sonu Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The only point which arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below rejecting the application of the petitioners for seeking permission of the Court to suitably modify the order of the temporary injunction dated 14.05.2009, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 52/2007 are un-reasonable and arbitrary? 3. In the suit that was filed by respondents no. 1 to 5 against the remaining respondents and present petitioners seeking declaration that decree dated 16.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 128/2001 was null and void and also seeking perpetual injunction against remaining respondents and present petitioners, who are defendants 2 to 14 in the suit before the trial Court, an application seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the suit was filed by respondents no. 1 to 5. The application, by an order passed on 14.05.2008, was granted by the trial Court. ...
Conception Fernandes and Another Vs. Tasneem Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2.9.2013 passed on an application at Exh.84 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC in Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2010/A by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama. 2. The petitioners, who are original defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners submit certain clarifications were sought to be introduced in the written statement so as to elaborate the stand and the defence taken by the petitioners. It was their contention that these pleadings were necessary for deciding the real controversy involved in the case and could not have been incorporated by them in the written statement earlier inspite of due diligence on their part. They submitted that their earlier counsel was instructed on these facts by them but he was of the opinion that it was not necessary to include them in the written statement as basic facts were already stated ...
M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. By this petition, the legality and correctness of the order passed on 1.7.2013 by Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has been challenged. In an inquiry initiated under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (œthe PF Act? for short) upon a complaint that there was no compliance being made in terms of the PF Act in respect of the workers engaged by the petitioner through contractors, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (œthe Commissioner? for short), found that workers engaged by contractors in connection with the work of the petitioner were eligible for provident fund benefits as the workers were covered by the definition of œemployee? under Section 2(f) of the said Act. The Commissioner in the said inquiry, identified the number of eligible employees and also determined the sum of Rs.1,06,00,537/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs five hundred and thirty seven only) as payable by the petitioner towards ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »