Mumbai Goa Court January 2015 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.
Sumitra Dwarkanath Sirsat and Others Vs. Shivanand Hanumantappa Bisiro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15th June, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, (Presiding Officer for short) by which the learned Presiding Officer has partly allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with 8% interest to the claimants. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was their case that husband of the claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 to 4 namely Dwarkanth Sirsat was walking on the road on the day of the accident i.e 28.11.2004 and at the relevant time of accident i.e at about 6.10.p.m the offending truck bearing No.KA-22-C-8292 driven by the respondent no.1 came towards wrong side and gave dash to the husband of the claimant no.1 namely Dwarkanth Sirsat. 4. According to the claimants the accident occurred ...
The Azmane Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. Kissan Gokuld ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order passed below Exhibit 21/D in Criminal Case No. OA/159/2011/B by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji, on 01.10.2012. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. Brief facts lead to the present appeal may be summarised as below: The complainant has filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 4. The complainant is a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, as made applicable to the State of Goa having its office at Mandur Goa and the accused is its member. The accused stood surety to the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- availed from the complainant by one Mr. Devidas N. Narvekar, resident of Altinho, Panaji Goa. Mr. Narvekar, is the principal borrower and the accused and one more person namely Mr. Raju G. Naik, are the sureties executed in favour of the complainant. The accused and the sureties...
Jose Almeida and Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, SOP ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both the above appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 14.01.2010 passed by the learned District Judge-2, FTC-II, Margao (Reference Court, for short), in Land Acquisition Case No. 50/2008. The appellants of First Appeal No. 50/2010, who are respondents in First Appeal No. 67/2011 were the applicants in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 50/2008, whereas the respondent in First Appeal No. 50/2010 who is the appellant no. 2 in First Appeal No. 67/2011 was the respondent in the said Land Acquisition Case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act for short), published in the Official Gazette dated 13.12.2004 and in two newspapers (Sunaparant and Herald), both dated 18.12.2004, the Government acquired land for improvement and widening of the road from old survey office to T.V.S. showroom ...
Executive Engineer, W.D. VIII GTIDC and Another Vs. Revati G. Goltekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 05/06/2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 21 of 2008.3. 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 26/05/2006, land was acquired for construction of L.B.M.C. of T.I.P. from ch. 27.70 kms. to 28.970 kms. in Siolim village of Bardez Taluka (Phase I). This included land admeasuring 6073 sq. mts. from survey holding Nos. 262/2, 262/6, 262/9, 262/12, 262/15 and 264/9 of Siolim village. An area of 1020 square metres has been acquired from survey no. 262/2; 615 square metres from survey no. 262/6; 1100 square metres from survey no. 262/9; 668 square metres from survey no. 262/12; 1000 square metres from survey no. 262/15; and 1670 square metres from survey no. 264/9. By Award dated ...
People's Movement for Civic Action through its General Secretary and A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The above petitions have been referred to me by the Honourable the Chief Justice, in accordance with the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for decision on the point of difference between my learned sister and brother Judges, Smt. Justice Roshan Dalvi and Shri Justice F. M. Reis, in the common judgment dated 26.02.2014, passed in the above petitions. The said point of difference, as stated by learned brother Reis, J, in paragraph 66 of the said Judgment, reads as under: Although I agree with my learned sister Smt. R. S. Dalvi, J that the plan which is at page 117 is the plan which was duly approved on 31.05.1995 and not the plan at page 122 as claimed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, for the reasons stated in the judgment, I deeply regret my inability to agree with the findings in the judgment with regard to the effect of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of Writ Petition (C) No. 329 ...
Deputy Collector and (L.A.) and Another Vs. Georgina Merces Jacques an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Mr. Pai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shet, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04/05/2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 215/1999.3. The respondents were applicants, whereas appellants were the respondents in the said Land Acquisition Case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case.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 09/04/1992, land was acquired for construction of Dongorim, Majorda, Dongorim, Kucha Gabriel Church Road, Our Lady Church to Tolleaband Guirim Road and Godinho Road in V. P. Majorda, Salcete-Goa. This included an area of 280 square metres of land from Survey No. 72/2; 600 square metres from Survey No. 7...
Bhonsle Dairy and Others Vs. Suresh Patel and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ferreira, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Margaoin Criminal Appeal No. 06/2013. 4. The respondent no. 1 had filed an application dated 20.09.2013, under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2013, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by way of producing eight documents as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said application. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the said application filed by the respondent no. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has...
Balcrishna Shivram Naik Gaoncar and Others Vs. Santosh Narayan Dessai ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both the above appeals were admitted on 17/03/2009 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Courts below fell in error in ignoring the fact that the defendants had set up a title in the third person while granting protection to them under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act? (ii) Whether the Courts below fell in error in ignoring the fact that the defendants had shown their willingness to purchase the property @ Rs.20/- per square metre when the agreement stipulated the rate @ Rs.60/-per square metre and when the defendants raised the plea that they are ready to purchase the property only if the plaintiff had a marketable title? (iii) Whether the Courts below fell in error in holding that suit was barred by limitation on the ground that the suit was one for demolition of the structure when essentially, the suit was one for possession? 2. I have heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri P.A. Kamat, learned ...
John V. Pereira, Khamamoll, Curchorem and Others Vs. Curchorem-Cacora ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Ms. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 2 to 6, Mr. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent no. 7, Shri Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 9 and 19, Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervenor no. 1, Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 10, 13 and 20 and Shri Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8. 2. The above Petition came to be filed in this Court on the ground that there is pollution in the Railway yard at Curchorem Railway Station in view of the transportation of mineral ore from different mining companies which were availing of the facilities of transport by railways. 3. During the course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, the Respondent no. 7 was called upon to examine the level of pollution at such yards and make some recommendations to erase or er...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›