Mumbai Goa Court August 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.
Pedro Anthony Lopes (since deceased) Through legal heirs and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, in Regular Civil Suit No. 11/2007 dated 03.08.2013 whereby an application filed by the respondents for appointment of Commissioner came to be allowed. 3. Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the appointment of the Commissioner would amount of calling for evidence at the instance of the Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have encroached into the property purchased by the respondents pursuant to the three sale deeds dated 21.05.1984, 30.07.1984 and 08.06.1987 by which the respondents have purchased three contiguous plots of the property surveyed under No.11/5 of the Village Batim. The lear...
State of Goa, Through Police Inspector, (Vasco Police Station) Vs. Sam ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Menezes, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28/06/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I (Trial Judge, for short) in Sessions Case No. 10/2010/I. 3. Initially, charge sheet No.09/2009 was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). The allegation was that the accused, on 01/12/2009 at 22.00 hours at House no. 202, near Pai Hospital, at Vaddem, Vasco, after latching his bed room from inside, assaulted his wife, Rupa alias Samiksha Shetye, by stabbing her in her stomach by means of a knife and caused grievous injuries to her and attempted to commit her murder. Charge was framed by the Trial Judge for the said offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) to which the accused pleaded not guil...
Subhash Shirodkar and Others Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecuto ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. registered on 10/07/2013 by the Officer in charge of Ponda Police Station being F.I.R. No. 169/2013; the Charge Sheet No. 253/2013 dated 30/12/2013 and the proceedings filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda against the petitioners for offences under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act, for short) read with Rules 5 and 6 of Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 (the Bio-Medical Waste Rules, for short) and Sections 199, 269, 297, 336, 447 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). 3. The said Charge Sheet, which has culminated into Criminal Case No. 1/S/IPC/2014/C, has been filed altogether against 11 accused persons. The petitioners are accused nos. 4 to 9 an...
Rajaram Estates and Another Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Sou ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under No.126/1 admeasuring 2...
Fairway Barge Operators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JandL Marine Services
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Menino Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. E.O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives notice. 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the short point which requires consideration is, whether the learned Judge was justified to pass the impugned order dated 11th March, 2014, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to lead secondary evidence? The learned Judge has passed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the whereabouts of the originals of such documents. It is not disputed by Shri Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that though the originals of such documents were not produced, nevertheless, the notarized certified copies of such documents were produced along with the plaint. The record also reveals t...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devnath M. Yadav and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant, National Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 11th March, 2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 101/2005, has approached this Court by the aforesaid first appeal. By the impugned judgment and award, Respondent No.1's claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and the respondents No.2, 3 and the appellant, jointly and severally directed to pay to the respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.1,59,150/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,17,150/- from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment of entire claim. 2. Learned Presiding Officer of the MACT, framed as many as 5 issues, which read thus: 1. Whether the claimant proves that on 17.11.2004 at 17.00 hours at Porvorim, the respondent no.1 drove the Maruti van bearing No.GA-01/T-4678 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed aga...
Francisco Milagres Colaco and Another Vs. Mohandas Damodar Dhaimode an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Quepem, Goa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondents for production of additional documents. 2. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and the petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B against the petitioners for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and also for payment of damages. The evidence in the suit was closed and final arguments were also heard. On 10.1.2014 the respondents prayed for adjournment as they wanted to produce the entire proceedings of Inventory No. 17014/57 along with Survey Form No. III of Survey Nos. 239/12 and 239/15 of Cacoda village, the same being necessary for deciding effectively the real controversy involved in the suit. The respondents also filed an application vide Ex.81 seeking leave of th...
Dajisaheb Sakrerao Prabhudessai, (Deceased) and Others Vs. Manikrao Am ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 52/2001 whereby an application for leave to produce the survey report, plan to incorporate such averments in the written statement came to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the respondents filed a suit on the basis that the petitioners and the respondents are co-owners of the property surveyed under no. 50/14 of Maulinguem Village and prayed for a permanent injunction. In the said suit, it is the case of the petitioners that a part of the said survey number belongs exclusively to the petitioners herein. It is further con...
Anjani Ghanasham Dessai Vs. Digamber Dattu Dessai and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this First Appeal preferred by original defendant no.1 challenging the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.303/2004 dated 30/08/2008. Said suit was filed by present respondents no.1 and 2, original plaintiffs. In the original suit, the present appellant was defendant no.1 and Assistant Engineer Sub-division-II, PWD, Goa was defendant no.2 and State of Goa was defendant no.3. The impugned judgment and decree is against the present appellant/original defendant no.1 only and, as such, present appellant is the only aggrieved party and there is no appeal preferred by original defendants no.2 and 3, as there was no obligation placed on them by impugned judgment and decree. Prior to discussing the case of the rival contesting parties, the averments in the plaint and in the written statement and the issues framed and the answers given and the final order passed are mentioned herein below to have proper perspective of the case. 2. Present appellant ...
M/s Lithoferro, a partnership firm, Goa represented herein by its Part ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The above writ petitions pertain to renewal of mining leases. Initially, the petitioners sought directions to the State Government to decide their applications for renewal of the mining leases filed in the year 2007. Some petitions, thereafter, came to be amended, thereby seeking directions to the State Government to execute the second renewal lease deeds. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are common, and the writ petitions have been analogously heard, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. BRIEF BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE 2-A. On 19th December, 1961, Goa was liberated and became a part of Indian Union. On 1st October, 1963, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as the MMDR Act") was made applicable to the Union Territory of Goa. Prior to liberation of Goa, the Portuguese who were ruling Goa had granted mining concessions i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »