Mumbai Goa Court June 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.
Shailesh Kothawale Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
1. Heard Mr. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: (a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to revoke/withdraw cancel the selection/appointment of the Respondents No. 3 to 5 to the posts of Excise Inspector; (b) This Hon'ble Court also be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the selection/appointment of the Respondents No. 3 to 5 for the posts of Excise Inspector. 3. Respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement dated 22/02/2007 inviting applications for the posts of Excise Inspector, whereby, inter alia, the educational qualification pres...
Gaurav Gupta Vs. Radhika Gupta
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim orders dated 04/10/2012 and 05/10/2012, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa (Trial Court), in Matrimonial Petition No.20/2009. 3. The petitioner and the respondent are Hindus by religion. They got married to each other on 17/04/1998 according to Hindu Customary Right, in Agra, Uttar Pradesh and the marriage was thereafter registered before the Sub- Registrar at Mapusa on 29/06/1998 under Registration No.664/98. They have two minor daughters from the wedlock, namely Khushi born on 14/02/2001 and Saachi born on 27/03/2004. The petitioner, on or about 24/03/2009, has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner, being Matrimonial Case No.20/2009, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act, for short), which is pending. Initially...
Krishna Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this Criminal Revision Application preferred by the present petitioner/original accused challenging both the earlier concurrent decisions against him in the matter of offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. 2. The present petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 22/3/2013 in Criminal Case No.89/S/2009/B for the offences mentioned above and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 279 I.P.C. He was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. Thirdly, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month and pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 337 of I.P.C. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, Criminal...
Richard John Lawrence Fernandes Vs. The Deputy Director of Administrat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
RanjitMore, J. 1. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the appointment order dated 13th December, 2006. The petitioner has also claimed a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint him as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from December, 2006 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner's case, in short, is as follows: In the year 2003, the respondents No.1 and 2 in order to fill up the existing vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer (Mech.) and other Junior Engineers, formulated a scheme to select suitable candidates, train them and then to employ them subsequently in the existing vacancies. The petitioner, accordingly, on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, underwent one year apprenticeship training in the Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji,Goa. An advertisement came to be published by respondents No.1 and 2 ...
Babush Vs. State and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. The present writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself considering that the issue involved in the matter is very small and in fact need not have much elaboration to be done inasmuch as what has been challenged in the present writ petition is the concurrent orders passed by the Deputy Collector dated 24/9/2013 and the order dated 19/3/2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The main dispute in the present matter is regarding the apprehension in the mind of the present respondent/original complainant that the coconut tree which is grown in the property belonging to the present petitioner is in a ruinous condition and may fall at any time over the property occupied and belonging to the original complainant/present respondent no.4. Without going into much details as to whether the said house property of respondent no.4 is legal or illegal, suffice it to say that present resp...
Telma Gonsalves Vs. Namdev Babuso Chodankar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. During the course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, a point came for consideration as to whether the revision preferred by the Respondent which resulted in the impugned Order before the learned Administrative Tribunal, was itself maintainable in law. 3. The records reveal that it is not in dispute that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent was for registration of Mundkar in terms of Section 29 of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The application for registration came to be allowed by the learned Mamlatdar. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned Addl. Dy. Collector in terms of Section 29(8) of the said Act. The Dy. Collector allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner by an Order date...
Ramesh Laxman Naik Mandrekar and Others Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
1. All the three Criminal Revision Applications are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as the issue involved in all the three revisions is same inasmuch as the revision petitioner/original accused nos.3,4 and 5 have asked for discharge from Special Case No.4/2003 pending before Special Court, North Goa, Panaji. All the three revision petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25/06/2008 passed by learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji vide which charges were directed to be framed against the present petitioners along with other co-accused. 2. Heard learned Counsel for respective petitioners. Also heard learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State, through CBI, Panaji-Goa. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions on the aspect whether the petitioners can be discharged from the proceedings, certain earlier events and certain admitted position can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the case. 3. On or about 25/10/1999...
Kusuma Manguesh Tirodkar alias Kusuma Manguesh Pednekar and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
1. Heard Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. The respondents, though duly served after admission, are absent. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 18/02/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2007, by which the Judgment and Decree dated 25/09/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vascoda-Gama (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 11/2006/B, has been confirmed. 3. The appellants were plaintiffs in the said suit whereas the respondents were the defendants no. 1 and 2. M/s Dempo Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji-Goa was the defendant no 3 but its name was struck off in terms of order dated 19/10/2006, passed by the Trial Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said sui...
David Vs. Audhut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
Oral Order: 1. This First Appeal is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard rival arguments for sometime. This First Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mapusa dated 6/3/2013. By the said Judgment and Award the claim petition was dismissed with costs. 3. The claim for Rs.4,00,000/- was filed by the present appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him mainly on his legs and knees causing fractures and also injuries to his ribs caused in a motor vehicular accident while he was driving his Omni van bearing no.GA-01-Z-6879 and when it dashed with another vehicle a motor jeep bearing registration No.GA-01-S-4845 being driven by present respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. The main issue as to whether the claimant proved that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.2 was answered in the negative by the learned member M.A.C.T. This is rightly...
Narayan Babu Velip and Another Vs. Dhillan Sada Dessai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Dukle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the both the appeals. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of the above Second Appeals, since both the appeals pertain to the same suit property and facts are also similar. 3. Second Appeal No.69 of 2008 arises out of the judgment, order and decree dated 25/01/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court', for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.64/2007 by which the judgment and decree dated 29/08/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Canacona ('Trial Court', for short) in Regular Civil Suit No.45/2003 has been quashed and set aside. Second Appeal No.96/2008 arises out the judgment, order and decree dated 05/06/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-3, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court') in Regular Civil appeal No.73/2007 by which the judgment and decre...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »