Mumbai Goa Court September 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.
Farzana Ansari Vs. Abid Ali Ansari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
1. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Agha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Agha waived service of notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Margao ("Appellate Court", for short) in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2012. The said Criminal Appeal was directed against the order dated 31/08/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class "C" Court, Vasco-da-Gama ("J.M.F.C.", for short), in Criminal Case No.27/DVA/2010/C. The petitioner was the complainant whereas the respondent was respondent no.1 in the said Criminal Case, wherein there were five more respondents. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned J.M.F.C. 4. The complainant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Prot...
Maria Alvita Veneziana Dias E Menezes @ Alvita Menezes Since deceased ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4. 2. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-II FTC-II, South Goa, Margao ("the Appellate Court" for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.176/2012. 4. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed by the respondents against the order dated 5.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division "D" Court (trial Court) in Regular Execution Application No.2/2009/D. 5. The said Execution Application was filed by the petitioner praying for execution of the consent decree dated 29.10.2003 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Civil Suit No.43/2001 and the mode of assistance sought by the Decree holder was to direct the appointment of some revenue authority to demarcate the prope...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Peter Phillip Po and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to the Judgment and Award dated 21.7.2007, delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition No.78/2005. The appellant-Insurance Company was respondent No.3 in those proceedings and was given leave to defend. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1, the driver of the vehicle (the mini truck) and respondent No.2 owner thereof did not participate in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). 2. The MACT has awarded total compensation of Rs.9,33,000/- to respondent No.1 before this Court i.e. claimant before the MACT, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 20.10.2005 till its realisation. The amount awarded has been deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company and out of it, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been withdrawn by respondent No.1, in terms of order of the MACT itself. 3. The accident had ...
Sharda Vs. Allen and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In this First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimant challenges the Judgment and Award dated 07.10.2008 delivered by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No.144 of 2007. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has dismissed the Appellant's Claim Petition. 2. The contentions of Appellant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was that while walking on foot towards the bus stop on 10.09.2006 on the road between Quepem to Tilamol near Kushavati Bridge, a motorcycle with registering No.GA-02/P-4584, came rashly and negligently on wrong side and dashed against her. She fell down and suffered fracture injury. The Respondent No.1 was the driver, the Respondent No.2 is the transferee-owner while Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle. The Respondent No.4 is the original owner of that motorcycle. The claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- which included demand of Res.10,000/- to...
Sidharth Narayan Siddhapur and Another Vs. FLUIDMAC and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 15.7.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao ("the Appellate Court" for short) in Criminal Revision Application No.62/2013 and the Judgment and order dated 31.7.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Quepem ("the J.M.F.C." for short) in Criminal Case No.34/NI/2010/A. 4. The petitioners are the accused persons whereas respondent No.1 is the complainant in the said Criminal Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 5. Complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short) against the accused persons, which has been registered as Criminal Case ...
Vinayak Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa ("Appellate Court", for short) in Criminal Appeal No.153/2011. The said Criminal Appeal was, in turn, filed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, "C" Court Bicholim ("J.M.F.C.", for short) in Criminal Case No.70/S/09/C. The applicant shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused and the respondent as prosecution. 2. Facts giving rise to the revision application, in short, are as under:- The accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." for short) in said Criminal Case No.70/S/09/C under the allegation that on 14.04.2009 at about 8.10 a.m., the accused drove minibus bearing No.GA-01-U-4699 in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same due to which the vehicle went towards the left...
Naveen Shanker Lokure Vs. Nascimento Milgares Pereira and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2 and 10(a) to 10(d), 10(e) to 10(g). 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19/05/2009 passed by the learned District Judge-4, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 70/1999. The said Regular Civil Appeal No. 70/1999 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/04/1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Judge, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 32/1972/A. The appellant was the defendant no. 2(a) and legal representative No. 1(a) of the original defendant no. 1, whereas the respondents no. 1 to 26 were the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs, in the said Civil Suit. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 3. The original plaintiffs namely Jose Francisco Pereir...
Damodar Vs. Umakant and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is filed by a driver of a fire engine/fire tender in employment of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the Fire Department, Government of Goa which provides services to extinguish fire and other emergency services. Respondent No.1 before this Court is the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Panaji. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 21st August, 2008, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), has allowed Claim Petition No.83/2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.61,000/- to respondent No.1, including the amount of No Fault Liability already granted to him, with 9 % interest upon it. It is not in dispute that on 27th April, 2006, an application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act filed by respondent No.1, was allowed and he was given compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The said respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear before this Court to oppose the proceedings. 4. I have heard Advocate Ms. A...
Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu and Another Vs. Vin ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26/06/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa ("First Appellate Court", for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.40/2001. The said appeal was filed against the Judgment and decree dated 16/02/2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bicholim ("trial Court", for short) in Regular Civil Suit No.9/1989. 3. The appellants and respondent no.7 were the defendants in the said suit whereas respondents No.1 to 6 were the plaintiffs. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The original plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows : The original plaintiff was in possession of the suit property known as "Dongrat" or "Khairat" situated at Revora, Bardez, Goa and bearing survey No.176/0, as ...
Dr. Herlander Coelho Pereira and Others Vs. Jaganath V. Naik alias Kun ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for respondents No.7(a) to 7(f). 2. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2005 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Tenancy Revision Application No.43/1995. 3. The facts of the case, in short, are as under: The respondent No.1 claimed to be tenant of the property bearing survey No.119/1 of village Penha de Franca. The respondent No.1 had filed two applications, one under Section 14 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short) and another under Section 18(C) of the Act. The Awal Karkun of Mapusa took up the application under Section 14 of the Act and disposed of the same by order dated 03.03.1992 and thereafter the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez disposed of the application for p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »