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.
M/s. Leading Hotels, Goa represented herein by its P. Ravi Vs. Shri An ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Norma Alwares, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos.6 to 10. 2. Rule. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to an order passed by the learned National Green Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) dated 08/09/2015 in Miscellaneous Application No.15/2015 in Appeal No.2/2015, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner, came to be rejected. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that they were granted environmental clearance on 12/04/2013 by the respondent no.7. The respondent nos.1 to 4 filed a Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No.26/2014 somewhere in December, 2014, ...
P. Ravi Vs. Police Inspector, Pernem Police Station and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent no. 1 and Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no. 2. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 108/2015, registered by P.S. Pernem against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (the Act of 2003, for short). The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Mr. Michael D'Souza, Jerome Mendes and Jason Rodrigues. It was alleged that on 25.06.2015 at 5 p.m., the petitioner alongwith 60 to 70 unknown persons entered in the property of Diago Francis Rodrigues, being Survey No. 2/70 of village Tiracol and the petitioner assaulted Master Jason Rodrigues, aged 17 years, with kicks. All the accused persons assaulted the complainants, thereby caus...
Santosh Kanta Assoldekar Vs. The Official Liquidator of M/s. National ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Amira Razaq, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the order passed by the Official Liquidator dated 20/04/2011, whereby the claim put forward by the appellant came to be rejected. 3. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was a workman in the establishment of the company in liquidation and that as his dues were not paid, the workman raised claims with that regard before different authorities. The learned Counsel further pointed out that at the time when the company in liquidation went on strike, it ultimately led to its closure. The learned Counsel also points out that somewhere in the year 2001 there was a settlement arrived before the Conciliation Officer between the Union to which the appellant belongs, with the company in liquidation. The learned Counsel further points out that thereaft...
Hussain Siddiqui and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through the Public Prose ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no. 3. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of Special Criminal Case No. 13/2015, before the Children's Court, Panaji, Goa and Criminal Case No. 18/JJB/2015, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Merces, Goa. Both these cases arise out of an incident forming part of the same transaction and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 3, who is the father of the victim girl, aged 14 years, it is alleged that the accused persons extorted about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- from the victim girl, that they had videographed the accused-Sheryal Khan kissing the victim girl and threatening her of showing the footage to her father. 4. After investigat...
M/s. UTV Motion Pictures Corporate Office : UTV Software Communication ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, at the instance of the original defendants, is to an order dated 01/10/2014 allowing the application (Exhibit 31) filed by the respondent/ plaintiff, for amendment of the plaint. 3. The precise challenge is on the ground that the impugned order amounts to allowing the respondent no.5 to retract their admission namely Murphy Munna Baby is an artistic work?, which is popular since the year 1948. 4. The brief facts are that the respondent filed Civil Suit No.49/2012 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, for permanent injunction, compensation and damages for infringement of trademark and copyright and certain consequential reliefs. 5. It appears that the application for Temporary Injunction filed by the respondent was rejected by an order dated 27/02/2013, whi...
Enny Milana Da Costa Vs. Chief Secretary, Secretariat and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Lobo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. V.R. Tamba, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.5 and 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. The respondents waive service. 3. The above habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the minor child was not traceable from 30/3/2015 after she had reported at People's High School at Panaji. Despite all attempts to serve the respondents no. 5 and 6 were not successful. On the last date of hearing, Mr. V. R. Tamba, learned counsel having office at Panaji filed appearance on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6. 4. Mr. Amonkar appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed an affidavit inter alia contending that there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband/Respondent no.5 and as such, the police attempts could not lead to ...
Alleluia Barnabe Caeiro and Another Vs. Wilson Caeiro and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
1. Heard Mr. Menino Pereira, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the original defendant nos. 7 and 8/petitioners herein seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, E? Court Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No. 341/2010/E, by which the objection raised by the petitioners vide Exh. 21 is rejected. 5. By Judgment and preliminary decree dated 1.3.2011, the trial Court sent preliminary decree to the Collector directing it to submit plan and area adjustment statement. The plaintiffs have share, where as the defendant nos. 1 to 6 have 1/4th share and the defendant nos. 7 and 8 have 1/4th share. The Collector ac...
Mario Cotta Pereira Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
1. Heard S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for appearing the respondent nos. 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 11a to 11d,12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a,18a,19a,20a, 21a and 21b, 22a to c, 23a and b, 24 b and c, 25 a to e, 26a, 27 a to e, 28a, 29 a to c, 31 a and b, 32 a, 33a, 34a and b, 35a, 36a and b, 37a, 38a and b, 42a, 43a, 44a, 45a, 46a, 47a, 48a to c, 49a and b, 50a, 51a and b, 52 a, 53a, 54a, 55a and 61. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice one behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 11a to 11d, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a, 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a and 21b, 22a to c, 23a and b, ...
Rajendra Rebello Vs. Housing Board of Goa, Through its Chairman
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 06.08.2010 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Courts below could have dismissed the suit of the appellant in toto after having recording a finding that the appellant was indeed owner in possession of the property surveyed under Nos. 49/3, 48/2 and 3 and 47/4 ? (b) Whether the Courts below misdirected themselves in casting the burden of proving that the road was not constructed in the acquired area, on the appellant, instead of casting the said burden on the respondent, and in failing to draw an adverse inference against the respondent for non production of the plan of acquisition which would show that the area of survey No.49/3 which was acquired by the Government, particularly in view of the fact that the report of the expert produced by the ...
Morgan Ventures Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sreejesh M.K., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges an order passed by the Company Law Board dated 31th July, 2008 whereby an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 came to be dismissed on two counts. The learned Company Law Board came to the conclusion that as the affidavit dated 1/8/2007 was not in accordance with the requisite consent required for filing an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellants were not entitled for any relief in such an application for filing such a false affidavit. The next ground on which the application came to be rejected is that the allegation of the appellants that they had consent of more than 100 members of the respondent Company was on the basis of a list submitted by M/s. Religare, out of which 43 members were not shown in the Register of Members mainta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »