Mumbai Goa Court October 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.
Pravin Arjun Shetkar Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, ha ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows: Pursuant to a duly conducted selection process, the petitioner was selected to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Office of the Collectorate of North Goa District, Panaji on 3rd June, 2010. The petitioner, accordingly, accepted the said post on 8th June, 2010, and joined the services on 29th June, 2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filled up an attestation form on 9th June, 2010, wherein in one of the clauses in such form, the petitioner did not disclose that when he was 14 years old, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on account of a petty offence. Thereafter, on 26th November, 2010, the Additional Collector issued a Memo to the petitioner stating that the petitioner should submit an explanation in connection with th...
Bonny Fernandes Vs. Umesh L. Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Heard Mr. Aldrin Monteiro, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent no.4. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.4. 4. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No. 64/2014. 5. Complainant/respondent no.1 herein filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused nos.1, 2 and 3/petitioner and the respondent nos. 2,3 herein. 6. Aft...
Venkatesh M. Karekar and Others Vs. Rosemary Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16th January, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the suit could be said to be falling one under Article 59 or Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court fell in error in holding that the limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge or the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiffs? (iii) Whether it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have claimed possession also as a relief along with declaration and injunction? 3. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of the first and second substantial questions of law, has pointed out that the suit filed by the appellants has to be considered in terms of ...
Antonio Sylvester D'Souza Vs. Village Panchayat of Korgao, through its ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The petitioner inter-alia prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to execute and implement the demolition order dated 17.08.2002 and carry out demolition in respect of the illegal construction in the property surveyed under No.393/2 of Korgao Village of Pernem Taluka. 5. Briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that on 17.08.2002 the respondent no.1 Village panchayat has directed the demolition of a structure erected by the respondent no.4 in the property surveyed under No.393/...
Green Goa Foundation, through its Chairman Raison Almeida Vs. The Muni ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. The above Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner on the ground that the feat of the Holy Spirit is celebrated in the months of May or June every year and the feast of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception is celebrated on 8th of December every year and the religious ceremonies are performed within the Church premises situated at old market, Margao Goa. But however, during the said festive occasion, a traditional fair is organized where artisans and others sell their products which would last for a period of three days including the feast day. Such fair was organized originally in the open space in front of the Church but however, over the years as the Church required the open space for religious activities, the fair gradually shifted to the roads near the Church and even in the open space in front of the building of the Civil and Criminal Court. Such activities according to the petitioner used to attract the local artisans and producers of hous...
IFIN Commodities Ltd. Vs. Rashmi Sharma and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Palekar, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no. 3. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions involve common and connected questions of law and fact. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the fact as involved in Writ Petition No. 436/2015 are set out herein. 3. The petitioner, IFIN Commodities Limited (the respondent no. 1 before the learned Arbitrators) is a Stock Broker and is a Member of Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited (MCX). The respondent no. 1 is the proprietress of 3P World, while the respondent no. 2 is its authorised signatory. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the intervenors before the learned Principal District Judge. The petitioner is a Company based at Chennai, while the respondent nos. 1 and 2 of 3P World are based at Bangalore. There is an agreement ...
Tulip Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Trade Wings Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
1. By this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners/original claimants are challenging the judgment and order dated 13/01/2015 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Arbitration Application No.10/2013. By the impugned judgment the learned District Judge has dismissed the application thereby confirming an order dated 6/07/2013 passed by the learned Arbitrator upholding an objection raised under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('The Act', for short) and thereby rejecting the claim filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai. It is engaged in the business of running hotels and other activities in the hospitality industry since about 1997. The petitioner no.2 is the Chairman of the petitioner no.1. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›