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.
Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Benedicta Fernandes e Dias and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The proceedings arise out of the Judgment delivered on 01.09.2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Margao, in Claim Petition No.217 of 2005. By said Judgment and Award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has found Respondents before it jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.12,48,458/- to the claimant No.1 with interest at 9 percent from the date of application till the date of Award. The amount of no fault liability awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed to be adjusted against the said compensation. 2. It is not in dispute that the husband of claimant No.1 was occupying the other vehicle involved in the accident namely Tata Mobile and expired in that accident. The claim was preferred by his widow and son (unmarried). The said son expired during the pendency of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 14.08.2001 on Margao-Cortalim Highway. At the relevant...
Arun Sharma Vs. Roxann Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. By consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06/09/2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court, for short) in Matrimonial Petition No. 59/2013/II. 4. The petitioner has filed the said Matrimonial Petition No. 59/2013/II in the Court of the trial Judge, under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the Act, for short), for permanent custody of the minor child and also for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from taking forcible custody of the child. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He claimed that he is a native of Mumbai and citizen of India whereas the respondent is American citizen. They were married in the year 200...
Claudio S.X. Pereira and Another Vs. Mohan Vasudev Salkar (deceased th ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The respondents were duly served before admission as well as after admission of the petition, but have chosen to remain absent. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa (trial Court) in Regular Execution Application No. 15/04/D. 3. The petitioners were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 13/1999/C. By judgment, order and decree dated 11/01/2001, then said was decreed as per the consent terms filed before the Trial Court. The said consent terms read as follows: 1) The defendants herein admit that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession and enjoyment of a plot of land admeasuring 415 square metres with a house constructed by the plaintiffs therein out of the property surveyed under Chalta No. 33 of P. T. Sheet No. 126/A...
Payal Baadkar and Others Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
Oral Order: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the Respondent no. 1 and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent no. 2. 2. Affidavits have been taken on record. The contention of the Petitioners is that after proper advertisement and valid selection process, they were all appointed on probation for a period of two years. After completion of period in excess of one year, the appointments are found to be vitiated and hence Order terminating their service had been issued on 03.07.2013. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that though inquiry has been conducted against the entire recruitment process, action has been taken only against the Petitioners. Inquiry Officer has acted without jurisdiction by sitting in Appeal over the said process. He submits that the Petitioners were not given any opportunity before the Inquiry...
Indi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents no.1(a), 1(b) and 3. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 2.6.2008 passed by the Minister for Labour, the Appropriate Authority under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short). 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It deals in pharmaceuticals at Plot No.2-9, Bethora Industrial Estate, Bethora, Ponda, Goa. By notice dated 20.6.2007, the Director of Food and Drugs Administration, Government of Goa, issued a notice, requiring the petitioner to close down the tablets and capsules Manufacturing Division by stopping forthwith manufacturing of tablets and capsules products on the ground of non-compliance of "GMP Schedule 'M' requirements" as prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Ru...
Premanand Ganesh Naik Vs. Dinanath Shankar Gaonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The injured victim has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 14/16.08.2008 delivered by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No.235 of 2005. The accident in this case has taken place on 29.05.2005 at about 8.10 p.m. The facts of accident or place of accident is not in dispute. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that claimant sustained fracture injuries and dis-figuration of right eye as also permanent disability. It also held that he established his employment as a bus attendant and wage of Rs.3,700/- per month. While answering the issue about the amount of compensation i.e. issue No.6, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that claimant could not establish his entitlement to compensation of Rs.8,66,545/-. In paragraph 43, it worked out its total entitlement to Rs.3,67,400/-. However, as it held that Appellant could not establish the neg...
Anthony John Brito D' Costa Alias Brito D' Costa Vs. Anthony R. D' Cos ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is filed by an injured victim of the accident seeking enhancement. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly stated that though before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, total claim of Rs.8,00,000/- was made, this Court may after considering the facts, grant just compensation. 3. It is not in dispute that vide Judgment delivered on 29.09.2008, in Claim Petition No.104 of 2007, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III, South Goa, Margao, has awarded compensation of Rs.86,721.46 only to present Appellant with nine percent interest. The Appellant has accordingly received that amount from Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 4. I have heard Advocate Shri S. S. Kakodkar for the Appellant and Advocate Shri Timble for the Respondent No.2. Nobody has appeared for Respondent No.1-owner/driver of offending vehicle. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has framed following four issues and answered the same as re...
Menino Mario Fernandes and Others Vs. Satyawan Guno Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants question the Judgment dated 24.09.2008 delivered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition no. 51 of 2008 dismissing the same. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The deceased Josepha Fernandes @ Josepha Da Silva, aged about 45 years, was the wife of appellants No. 1. The other appellants are the brothers and sisters of the deceased and their respective spouses, as they qualified to be heirs in view of the local law. The learned Counsel for claimants, particularly on behalf of appellants No. 1, has submitted that they may not qualify as dependents. The accident has taken place on 17.06.2007 when deceased was proceeding towards Pontemol on Curchorem market, Mirabag road, on a motorcycle bearing no. GA-02-Q-4957. She fell down from motorcycle near Kens Corner Bar and Restaurant at about 14.50 hours. The motorcycle was being driven by respondent no.1. Responde...
Girish Jaggal and Another Vs. Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-10-2014
1. Heard Mr. Vales, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in both the petitions. 2. This common Judgment shall dispose of both the above petitions as the parties, facts and law involved in both are the same though the cheques are different. 3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 07/01/2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mapusa (trial Judge), separately, in Criminal Case No. 119/OA/NI/12/B and Criminal Case No. 126/OA/NIA/2012/C, thereby directing issuance of process against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) and the order dated 18/10/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao (Appellate Judge, for short), separately, in Criminal Revision Application No. 85/2013 and in Criminal Revision Application No. 74/2013. The petitioners have prayed f...
Megha Uttam Gauns alias Kundaikar and Others Vs. Rohidas K. Borges and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by widow and two sons of the deceased Uttam Gauns alias Kundaikar, who died due to accident on 1st April, 2005. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 25th March, 2005 at about 20.10 hours near Sateri Temple. The deceased was riding a TVS Scooty, whilst other vehicle i.e. a motor cycle Suzuki Max-100 was being driven by respondent No.2 Mahesh. 2. Claiming that said motor cycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident, claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be filed. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji decided the said Claim Petition No.76/2005 on 28/04/2009. It answered issue No.2 pertaining to accidental death of Uttam, in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the claimants/appellants. Issue No.3 has been answered in the negative, but then in the process the Tribunal has worked out the total compensation, if payable on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »