Mumbai Goa Court November 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.
Savia Torres Vs. Leslie Trodoro Saldanha
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, 'A' Court, Panaji in Matrimonial Petition No.54/2012/A dated 31/10/2014, by which the appellant seeking divorce from the respondent is dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The appellant is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place at Panaji on 22/12/2010 and it was registered in the office of the Civil Registrar of Panaji under registration no.31/11 of the year 2011. The appellant is serving as Assistant Professor of Chemistry in Carmel College at Nuvem. The respondent is serving as an Accounts Teacher at Dubai. 4. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent is not performing his matrimonial obligations. At the time of settlement of the marriage the res...
Suhas D. Anvekar Vs. Durgadas Lotlikar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. Heard D. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. L. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Ms. L. Naik, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. This Writ Petition is filed by the original defendants seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao on an application for amendment of the pleadings at Exh.48. 5. The parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court. 6. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of the certain amount from the defendant/petitioner and there was some typing mistake/error in paragraphs 6 and 7 in relation to the figure of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- So the plaintiff wants to correct the figures in paragraph 4 as Rs.3,00,000/- instead...
Sharma B. V. Coutinho Vs. Andre Lourenco Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Heard S. Shet, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. B. Sardessai, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of th e respondents. 4. By this petition the original defendant no. 4 has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge(Ad-hoc), Margao below Exh. 41 dated 4.12.2014 by which the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 5. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The suit for the declaration was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 11 against the present petitioner and respondent nos. 12 to 14. Summons were duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner appeared on 17.7.2012 and matter was fixed for filing Written Statement on 2.8.2012. However, the defendant no.4/present petitioner failed to remain present. Subsequently matter was fixed on 30.8.2...
Purshottam Yeshwant Fal Dessai (deceased) and Others Vs. Ramakant Pain ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in Second Appeal nos. 25 and 28 to 31 of 2009 and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in Second Appeal no. 60 of 2010. 2. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, in support of the above Appeal and the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, has pointed out that before the learned Lower Appellate Court, the Appellants had produced the document of the Land Registration Records pertaining to the property described under no. 6352 which, according to the Appellants, corresponds to the suit property. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court to point out that though an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the Appellants which was allowed granting leave to the Appellants to produce such...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vibhavari R. Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa-Goa in Claim Petition No.16/2007 dated 30/09/2008 by which the Claim Petition is partly allowed and the respondents no.2 and 3 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as mentioned in the operative order. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent no.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the respondents had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy amongst the other grounds. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said Claim Petition. 2. The claimants/the legal heirs of the deceased Ravindra filed petition under provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accident occurred on 11/09/2006 at about 21.55 hours in front of Anand Vihar Building, ...
State of Goa, the Deputy Collector (Rev) and Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. The appellants in both the cases have acquired a land surveyed under Survey Nos. 150 and 151 to the extent of 1,640 square meters each, situated at village Taleigao, Tiswadi Taluka for the purpose of construction of police outpost at Taleigao. The respondents in both the above appeals have preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, bearing Land Acquisition Case Nos. 130/1996 and 131/1996 respectively. Both the references were referred to the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The claimant/respondent in First Appeal No. 269/2002 filed a Land Acquisition Case No. 130/1996 and thereby contended that land was acquired for the purpose of construction of police outpost by a notification dated 21.12.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11.02.1992 and the award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21.04.1994...
Suresh Anant Kamat Vs. The State of Goa, Represented by Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. This petition was initially filed by the petitioner in person as a Writ Petition. By an order dated 22/07/2013, the petition was directed to be converted into a P.I.L. The petition, inter alia, seeks implementation of the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002 (the Act, for short) and the Rules thereunder. It is contended that the State Government is not seriously taking steps and measures for proper implementation of the said Act, causing huge financial loss to the exchequer and the corresponding unjust enrichment to the persons, brazenly flouting the provisions of the said Act. 2. The petitioner happens to be a Science graduate and former public sector employee, claiming considerable technical, commercial and administrative experience. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.363/2012. This Court, by an order dated 09/08/2012, had directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Secretary, who was directed to take decision in accordance with law, within...
Dr. K.M. Sadre and Others Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. J. Supekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC, Mrs. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 in WP No. 481 of 2013, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 in WP No. 104 of 2014 and Mr. A. Prabhudessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 in WP No. 105 of 2014. All the above Writ Petitions were taken up together as all the impugned orders dated 14.03.2011 are refusing to grant Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioners by the UGC “ respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 481 of 2013 and the respondent no.3 in the remaining Writ Petitions. 2. Mr. Supekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners retired on 31.01.199...
Lucille D'souza and Another Vs. Union of India, through the Ministry o ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Vernekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions, Ms. S. Mordekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.2 (GCZMA, for short) in W.P.No.817/2011 and Shri S. Dhargalkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.1 (GCZMA, for short) in W.P.No.155/2010. 2. Both the above writ petitions were taken up together by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, as the disputed structures are in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioners and the parties to the petitions are the same. 3. Shri Vernekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of the above Writ Petitions, has taken us through the impugned order dated 15/11/2011 passed by the GCZMA and pointed out from the chart therein that the property bearing Survey No.243/15 shows the structures A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J as shown in the DSLR Plan, which is marked 'X'...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›