Mumbai Goa Court July 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.
State Vs. Melwyn Francis Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15/12/2010 passed by JMFC, Mapusa in Criminal Case No.271/S/2002/F. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the present respondent/accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Prior to discussing the rival submissions, the provisions of Section 468 and 471 are required to be looked into in order to ascertain as to whether the prosecution has established the ingredients of the said provisions and whether in the limited scope available to this Court in appeal against acquittal, any interference is warranted. Said Sections 468 and 471 read thus: 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term ...
Salgaocar Mining Industries Ltd. Vs. Roguvir Rajaram Paigankar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 8/1991/A. The said suit was filed seeking following reliefs: (A) (i) That this Court be pleased to declare that the purported termination of the agreement dated 6th June, 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th November, 1984 is invalid and bad in law and that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree is valid and subsisting and that it presently stands renewed for three years from 6th June, 1990. (ii) Consequent upon the declaration that the Agreement dated 6th June 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th Nov. 1984 is valid and subsisting, the Court be pleased to declare that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree stands renewed further for period of every three year from 6th June 1990 till end of such period of three years during which the Court passes its judgment and order or till any such period the...
Robinson D'Costa Vs. Nesbit D'Costa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this criminal appeal preferred by the original complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 2/11/2010 passed in Criminal Case No.200/OA/NI/08/E. By the said impugned judgment and order the present respondent no.1 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal appellant/original complainant initially prayed for leave to file appeal and after the leave was granted preferred the present appeal. 2. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the only ground on which the criminal complaint was dismissed, acquitting the respondent/accused was that the debt of Rs.6.00 lakhs was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque. 3. Prior to discussing the rival arguments certain admitted factual position is mentioned as under: In the present appeal, complainant and the accused/respondent no.1 are close friends and accused/respondent no.1 asked for loan...
SBICAP Trustee Company Limited and Others Vs. United Spirits Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. F. Devitre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, Mr. S. Malyekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Vineet Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service as the notice was given for final disposal at the stage of admission. 4. The above appeal challenges an order dated 01.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby an application filed by the respondent no.1 for urgent interim relief came to be allowed and the reliefs as mentioned in the impugned order came to be granted. 5. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants and the respondents, I will briefly record the relevant facts of the case. The respondent no.1 filed a suit inter-alia con...
Ulhas Narayan Naik Vs. State Through P.P. and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Writ Petition preferred purported to be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is challenged is the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 9/2/2010 in Criminal Revision Application No.165/2008. Said Criminal Revision was filed by the State challenging the order passed by the J.M.F.C discharging the present petitioner on 21/8/2008 in the police case for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. The said police case was filed on the initiation of the F.I.R lodged by the original complainant. Said F.I.R was lodged on 16/9/2005 for taking action against the present petitioner for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed on 27/12/2007. However, the accused was discharged by the J.M.F.C vide order dated 21/8/2008. 3. Again another factual position is required to be...
Rita Leena D'Souza Vs. State Through CBI/ACB/GOA
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/original accused no.2. Also heard learned Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal revision is filed by original accused no.2 challenging the order dated 12/03/2014 passed by Special Judge, CBI Court at Mapusa in Special Case No.2/13/D. The said impugned order was passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court on the arguments advanced on behalf of present petitioner/accused no.2. The said arguments were advanced before framing of charge. Certain factual position leading to the filing of the present criminal revision is narrated as under: Present petitioner/accused no.2 along with her husband accused no.1 were charge sheeted before the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. So far as p...
Francisco Xavier @ Mickky Pacheco Vs. State of Goa, by the Public Pros ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties both the writ petitions are taken for final hearing and disposed at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appointed by this Court to assist the Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2013. Also heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.G. Dessai in Writ Petition No.101/2013, representing the writ petitioner, the original accused. Also heard Prosecutors representing the State in both the writ petitions. 3. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the Writ Petition No.1/2013 is a Suo Motu Writ Petition taken up by this Court by giving suitable directions vide order dated 24/01/2013 (Coram : F.M. Reis, J.). Said directions were given in two proceedings filed before this Court, one being Criminal Revision Application No.49/2012 and another one being Criminal Writ Petition No.9/2013. In both these proceedings filed by the private individuals, not concerned with the matter, p...
Maria Beatriz De Souza Daughter of late Arnaldo de Souza Vs. Agnelo Jo ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 07/04/2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji (Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.66 of 2011 and has prayed to quash and set aside the same and to restore the order dated 30/04/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji (Trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.80/2009/A. 3. By order dated 13/06/2012, Rule was issued in the matter and it was directed that interim custody of the child which was already with the petitioner would continue to remain with her until the final disposal of the petition. 4. The petitioner and respondent were married in Goa on 08/05/2007 and the marriage was registered before the Civil Registrar of Ilhas under Registration No.424/2007. Out of the said we...
Communidade of Quitol Vs. President, Fabrica of Betul Church and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 04/10/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.72/1993. 3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said L.A.C. No.72/1993. 4. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('L.A. Act', for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 04/01/1990, land was acquired at Betul and Quitol villages in Quepem Taluka for setting up an Institution of Safety and Environmental Management for Petroleum Industries of India. This included an area of 61,425 square metres from Survey No.73 and an area of 43,400 square metres from Survey No.71/4 of Quitol village. By award dated 17/06/1992, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) awarded certain compensation for the said land but since there was dispute amongst t...
Francisco Colaco Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard learned Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the petitioner/original accused challenging his conviction in criminal case no.148/S/2004/D passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, D-Court, Margao for the offences punishable under Sections 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Cinematography Act. For the offence punishable under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, present petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 7 of Cinematography Act, he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This judgment and order was challenged before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal no.44/2012. Said Criminal Appeal was finally heard and was dismisse...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »