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.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sundari Krishna Naik ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. Heard Ms. Kalyankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, and Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22/04/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao ('Claims Tribunal') in Claims Petition No. 195/2011. 3. In the said Claims Petition, appellant was respondent no. 3; respondent no.1 was the claimant; respondent no. 2 was the respondent no. 1 (driver) and respondent no. 3 was the respondent no. 2 (owner of the vehicle). Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Claims Petition. 4. The claimant had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of total amount of Rs. 6,59,000/- on account of injuries, resulting in permanent disability, sustained by her in a motor vehicular accident. 5. Case of the claimant ...
Anup Singh and Another Vs. Benizi V. M. Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that interim orders passed on 13.2.2014 and 11.3.2014, which are based upon the order passed on 22.10.2013 are arbitrary with the first order dated 22.10.2013 also being an arbitrary order. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that these orders are required to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 states that main application for grant of temporary injunction itself is now posted for hearing at 2.30p.m and he would have no objection, if the main application is directed to be heard and disposed of expeditiously. 6. Incidentally, respondent no. 3 is also power of attorney holder for remaining respondents except respondent no. 9. Since respondent no. 3 practically represents all the respondents except respondent no. 9, statement so made by him can be taken to be ...
Pundalik Bhandari Vs. State (Through P. I. Curchorem Police Station)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. Heard Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2011 and has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 21/01/2013 and further judgment, Order and Sentence dated 22/01/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in the said Sessions Case. 3. Curchorem Police had filed the charge sheet against accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned J.M.F.C., Sanguem by order dated 28/06/2011 committed the case to the Sessions Court and it was allotted to the Trial Court. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 28/08/2009 at 15.00 hours at Madel, Sanvordem, the accused assaulted...
Manguesh Devasthan Vs. Krishna Gawade (Since Deceased) Through Legal H ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2004 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219/2003 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 48/2003 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda, dismissing the suit of the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondents claiming reliefs that the appellant be declared as owner in possession of the suit property and that Mamlatdar or appropriate authority be directed to correct the survey records by deleting the entry entered into the tenant's column showing husband of respondent no.1 to be the tenant of only paddy field forming part of the suit property bearing survey no. 24/3 of village Priol of Ponda Taluka. 3. It was the contention of the appellant that appellant was the owner in possession of the suit property since more than 100 years and when...
Santosh Sajo Malik and Others Vs. Prakash Mahadev Malik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Court in Civil Suit No.19 of 2005 on 31/1/2008 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit praying for decree for declaration that the members of two Malik families of Hassapur are the Mahajans of the œShri Sateri Devasthan Hassapur-Waddi? and are sole owners of the Devasthan property surveyed under survey no.405/1 of Hassapur village. They prayed for decree directing the Bandhkam Samiti members, the defendants no. 1 to 4 to render the accounts of construction/renovation of the temple of the Devasthan. They further prayed for decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, servants, agents or any person or persons acting through or under them from interfering in any manner with the ownership rights of the Mahajans of the Devasthan of Shri Sateri Hassapur Wadi. They further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, thei...
M/S Reshmi Constructions Vs. Laxman Vithal Chunekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Shet, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. This Revision Application was initially filed as Criminal Appeal No. 80/2009 which was admitted by order dated 16/11/2009. Revision Application stands admitted and by consent is heard forthwith. 3. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15/05/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda ('Trial Magistrate') in Criminal Case No. 389/OA/2006/B. 4. The revision applicant was the complainant in the said criminal case whereas respondent no.1 was the accused. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 5. The complainant, the Partnership Firm represented by its partner, namely Shri Pandharinath Chafadkar, had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('N. I. Act') against the accused. It was a...
Gurudas Hari Dhekne Vs. Rucmini Laxmidas
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. By this petition, the judgment and order dated 4/03/2011, passed by President, Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa in Eviction Appeal no.28/1995, has been challenged. 2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent and, since, he had fallen in arrears of rent for a period of more than three months and, since, he did not pay the arrears of rent within 30 days of the receipt of the registered notice served upon him by the respondent, respondent filed an application dated 2/08/1990 before the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, Goa under Section 22(2)(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') for eviction of the premises. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioner stating that the rent fell in arrears because of refusal of the respondent to accept the rent whenever it was attempted to be paid to her. The petitioner contended that reason for refusal to accept the rent by the respondent w...
Saraswati Suryaji Mamlekar and Others Vs. Suryaji Shankar Mamlekar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12/04/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-I Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No.485 of 2010. By the impugned Judgment, said appeal was allowed with the result that the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 01/11/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 155/2000/B (New): Regular Civil Suit No.14/1989 (Old) came to be quashed and set aside and consequently the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs stood dismissed. 3. The present appellants were the plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit whereas the respondents were the defendants therein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for declaration tha...
Chater S. JaIn Vs. B. Abdul Kadar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
1. Heard Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31/08/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, Goa (JMFC) in Criminal Case No. OA/86/07/D/C. The appellant was the complainant whereas respondent no.1 was the accused in the said case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 3. The complainant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act') against the accused. The case of the complainant was as follows : The complainant and others had floated a company by name œFocus Construction and Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd.? ('the Company'), at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. The accused bought the Company and the shares of the complainant for total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Towards initial part payment of consider...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›