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.
Rajendra D. Seth Vs. Rekha Jha Alias Rekha R. Seth
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji (œAppellate Court? for short) in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2012 and the judgment and order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (B-Court), Ponda (œTrial Magistrate? for short) in Criminal Case No.59/AOA/DVA/2011/B. 4. The petitioner is the opponent whereas the respondent is the applicant in the said Criminal Case No.59/AOA/DVA/2011/B. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 5. An application has been filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (œthe Act? for short), before the Trial...
Sundarabai Govind Dhuri and Others Vs. Diago Minguel Pereira and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Dias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 10 and Mrs. Aras, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.14. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to order dated 18/07/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 'A' Court, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 14/2008/A. 4. Respondents no.1 to 10 are the plaintiffs in the said Special Civil Suit No.14/2008/A; the petitioners are defendants no. 1 to 19; respondents no 11 to 14 are defendants no. 20 to 23; and respondents no. 15 and 16 are newly added defendants no. 24 and 25. For the sake of convenience, parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Suit. 5. The plaintiff no. 5 has filed affidavit-in-reply and has produced various documents. 6. The said Special Civil Suit No. 14/2008 has been f...
Special Land Acquisition Officer (North) Goa Tillari Irrigation Develo ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30.12.2006 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 67/2001 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as œthe said Act?) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 15.01.1992 land admeasuring 4675 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 7(part) and an area of 650 square metres from the property surveyed under no.8 (part) was acquired for the left bank main canal of Tillari Irrigation Project in the village of Assonora in Bardez Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer pas...
Sunita Narahari Parab and Others Vs. Usha Anant Lad
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Naik learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and proprietary of the order passed on 30.04.2013 by the learned District Judge-1, Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2012 thereby quashing and setting aside the order of the trial Court rejecting temporary injunction application of the respondent and partly granting it. 3. By the order impugned herein the first appellate Court has restrained the petitioners from interfering with the suit property bearing Survey No. 359/23 and also restrained them from carrying out any construction. Further, they have been restrained from selling or alienating or changing the user of the property or transferring or disposing it of in any manner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prima-facie consideration of documents produced on recor...
Leela Fondu Mayekar and Others Vs. Damodar Datta Zuwarkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 1/07/2013 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.30/2013 by Adhoc District Judge “ 1 (FTC), Panaji. The petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay, which was of 400 days, which occurred in preferring an appeal against the order dated 30/11/2011, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.42/2011/C by Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji. 3. It was urged by the petitioners that petitioner no.4 was the only conversant party in the matter and as he suffered a paralytic stroke on 9/12/2011, i.e. immediately after passing of the order dated 30/11/2011, which was followed by a heart attack in March, 2012, for which ailments, the conversant party was on continuous medical treatment, he could not take a decision about preferring of the appeal. It was also submitted by him that having regard to ...
Dr. Joao Filipe Do Rego and Others Vs. Deputy Collector (Dev) and Land ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/appellants in the above appeals. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they are so described in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006. 3. Both the above appeals challenge the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.07.2006 in Land Acquisition Case No. 42/1990 whereby a reference filed by the applicants was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification dated 18.02.1982, land admeasuring 2502 square metres from the property surveyed under P.T. Sheet No. 141 of Chalta No.1 of Panaji city situated at Miramar came to be acquired for the construction of parks, recreational and other development of Miramar ...
Antonio Ferdino Varela Vs. thereza Maria Angela Varela
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed on 06.01.2014 by the learned District Judge-2, Panaji partly allowing the application for amendment of the petitioner so as to add one additional ground and partly refusing leave to incorporate another additional ground for divorce. 3. After hearing both the sides, the question that arises for my consideration is: œWhether the discretion exercised by the learned District Judge-2 in refusing leave to amend the petition by incorporating additional ground for divorce based on Article 4(8) of the Law of Divorce is arbitrary and un-reasonable ?? 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the one of the grounds on which the learned District Judge refused permission to incorporate the additional ground for divorce based on Article 4(8) of the Law of Divorce was that the application for incorporat...
Valentino S. I. F. Rebello and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Represent ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
1. The Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the Adhoc District Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 160 of 2004 on 30.08.2007, by which the Suit filed by the original Plaintiff/Respondent, is decreed. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The Appellants/Original Defendants had initiated proceedings under Article 14 (3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Revenue Code, 1968'), before the Deputy Collector, praying that the holding under Survey no. 56/2 of Village Velim be re-surveyed and additional area admeasuring 227 square metres be amalgamated in the said survey holding and the area of the said holding be increased to 477 square metres. The learned Deputy Collector by the Order dated 24.10.2002, allowed the application filed by the Appellants/Original Defendants. 3. The Respondent/Original Plaintiff, challenged the above mentioned Order passed by the Deputy Collector by filing the Civil Suit as provi...
Ryan Manuel Braganza and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Order: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The above Public Interest Litigation, came to be filed by the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that they are affected by the noise pollution caused by the Respondent nos. 7 to 12 at their respective premises at the addresses mentioned in the cause title. It is their case that the said Respondents are carrying on their business of Bar and Restaurant in the premises at St. Michael Vaddo in Anjuna. It is further their case that the activities are unauthorised and that they are carrying out business from the shacks located therein which are owned by them and are illegally constructed in contravention of the CRZ Notification. It is further their case that there are late night loud music parties organised in the said premises thereby the residences in the vicinity of the said premises and the Senior Citizens and families are affected on account of the loud nerve wrecking and horrific music played unabated al...
M/S. Reliance Enterprises, Represented by Its Sole Proprietor, Shri Si ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Oral Judgment: Heard 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This petition challenges the order passed on 30.11.2013 in Special Civil Suit No. 137/2006 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondents for amendment of their written statement. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the amendment application filed by the respondents on 19.3.2013 seeking to set up a plea of set-off against the demand of the plaintiff in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the money against the respondents was grossly belated and did not at all satisfy the requirements of Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that the amendment of the written statement was only another method of getting over order of rejection of counter claim passed earlier by same Court whereby the counter claim made by the respondents was not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 6. The a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »