Mumbai Goa Court December 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.
Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory Pr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. Whether a Civil Revision Application would lie under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, (the Act, for short) against an order passed by the Director of Panchayats, under Section 66(7) of the said Act, in view of the finality, which is attached to the said order, is the question, which falls for determination in this case. 2. The aforesaid issue arises in the following facts: The petitioner had applied for a licence for construction of a Beach Resort at village Arossim, on the basis of technical clearance granted on 25/06/2014. That application was made to the first respondent Village Panchayat. The petitioner had also submitted a CRZ clearance dated 11/04/2013 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India. The first respondent, by a communication dated 16/10/2014, returned the proposal for the reason that the built up area of the proposed construction being in excess of 20000 square metres, requires prior environmental clearance under the Env...
Indu G.N. Rane, Principal, People's Higher Secondary School (Governmen ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking parity in pay scale, with her counterpart in a Government Higher Secondary School. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal, in the People's Higher Secondary School, Panaji (respondent no. 3) on 22.11.2000 in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500. The appointment of the petitioner was eventually approved by the respondent no. 1. The material dispute pertains to two circulars issued by the respondent no. 1 dated 28.05.1998 and 31.03.1999. It appears that by the circular dated 28.05.1998, it was stipulated that the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School having a total student enrollment between 120 and 300 shall carry a pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500. By a subsequent circular dated 31.03.1999, it was clarified that in case of marginally higher strength of students i.e. upto 350 students, the post of Principal will carry the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200, with a rider that the said p...
Soma L. Raut, Assistant Sub Inspector and Others Vs. The State of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 01/09/2008 , whereby, the claim of the petitioners for upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 applicable to Head Constables (Executive) with effect from 01/01/1996 and upgradation of pay scale of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) to a scale higher than Rs.4000-6000, has been refused. 2. The petitioner nos.1 to 3 were at the relevant time working as ASIs while the petitioner nos.4 to 6 were working as Head Constables (ACPS). Indisputably, the petitioner nos.4 to 6 were getting pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The petitioner nos.1 to 3 have been promoted as ASI (Executive) from the post of Head Constable (Executive) in the year 2007. The post of Head Constable (Executive) was carrying a pay scale of Rs.3200-4900, whereas the promotional post of ASI was carrying pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3. The material contention is that Head Constables (Executive) are ent...
Abhishek Mishra Vs. The State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for the respondents. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the memorandum dated 28.10.2013, issued by the Superintendent of Excise, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of liquor license for retail sale of IMFL, CL and FL has been rejected. The petitioner is also challenging the communication dated 09.02.1989, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Finance (Revenue and Control) and in particular, clause 3 thereof, by which the Excise Authority has been asked to ensure that people with criminal background/police record should not be given liquor license for obvious reasons?. The Excise Commissioner has been asked to ascertain from the I.G.P. as to whether there is any record person seeking such license. 3. Sometime in the year 2012, the petitioner started the business of Bar and Restaurant in the n...
Shree Developers A Partnership firm and Others Vs. Charles Anthony Pac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2a to 2d in Writ Petition No.342/2015 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.564/2015. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(d) and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No. 342/2015 and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. C. Padgaonkar, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent...
Pratapsingh Raoji Rane Vs. Jitendra Zoiba Rane and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Surveyor present in person and submits a report as per the directions of this Court by order dated 9/10/2015. The said report is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Copies of the report furnished to the respective Counsel appearing for both the parties. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in terms of the said order has agreed to bear the costs of the commission. The bill has already been handed over to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant who has undertaken to pay to the Surveyor/Commissioner within one week from today. 2. As the report has already been submitted the Surveyor is accordingly discharged. 3. Heard Mr. C.A. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. G. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The above appeal came to be admitted by on order dated 6/08/2008 on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether non-compliance of Order 7, Rule 3, C.P.C. Is f...
Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sakharam Gad and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
1. Heard Mr. Atul Damle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bennet D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 14 in Writ Petition No. 738/2015 and for respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No. 739/2015. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. R. Menezes, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos 1 to 14 in Writ Petition No.738/2015 and for the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no. 739/2015. FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2015 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/Employer under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the award dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in Reference No. IT/10/2011 wherein benefits of settlement was directed to be made applicable to the workers. 5. Parties are referred to as per their original status. The brief facts may be stated as follows:- In t...
Satish @ Santosh Gaonkar Vs. Durgesh B. Gaokar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ claimant is challenging the judgment and award dated 30/11/2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao in Claims Petition No.243/2007. 2. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant was, at the relevant time, working as a Peon in Department of Post at Chinchinim Branch and was getting salary of Rs.3422/- per month. The appellant was 29 years of age. The accident in question had occurred on 04/07/2007. It is contended that the appellant had gone to the Chinchinim Post Office and was returning home on a Bajaj Kawasaki Caliber vehicle bearing registration No.GA02-P-4580 as a pillion rider. The said motor bike was driven by the first respondent, who is the brother of the appellant. The appellant had started at around 11.30 hours and when they reached three road junction near Uskini Band, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa on National Highway 17, leading from Margao to...
Govind B. Prabhugaonkar Vs. Romaldina Barreto E Carneiro and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no. 1. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions involve common and connected questions of law and fact. They are between the same parties. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner is a complainant in three different cases filed against the respondent no. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act, for short). It is contended that three cheques were issued by the respondent no. 1, towards legally enforceable liability, which were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, which led the petitioner to proceed against the respondent no. 1, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. According to the respondent no. 1, he had obtained a hand loan of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 10% per month. It is contended that by way of security, ...
Trajano D'Mello Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Bras de Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.8. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. We have extensively heard Mr. Rohit Bras de Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General along with Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Mr. S. S. Kantak, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »