Mumbai Goa Court February 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.
Anand Kale Vs. The State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., North Goa, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 44/2011 dated 31.07.2013 by which the accused no.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Hence, the present appeal by the accused no.1. 2. The brief facts of the case may be summarised as follows: On 20.02.2009 at around 3.00 p.m. five buffaloes of the appellant/accused entered into the farm of the complainant Nandini and started grazing. Hence, her husband Dattatray and son Dineshwar caught the buffaloes and tied them to their rubber tree. The incident was reported to the village panchayat and the members of the village panchayat assured to look into the matter. 3. At about 4.30 p.m the appellant/accused and his wife i.e. accus...
Maya Shrikant Sawant Dessai Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Taken up for final disposal by consent. 2. Calling for record and proceedings is dispensed with in view of the nature of the order impugned. 3. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges the order dated 21 July, 2014 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao, allowing the application filed by the respondents for rejection of the plaint filed by the Appellant. 4. The Appellant has filed a suit contending that she is the one of the registered farmers in the command area of Seraulim Irrigation Project (SIP). It was the case of the Appellant that respondent no.2 had issued an auction notice inviting bids on behalf of the Governor of Goa from the interested parties situated in the command of SIP. The Appellant, pursuant to the auction notice, made an application for participation in the auction. She obtained the terms and conditions of auction of lease. According to the Appellant, when she obtained the terms and conditions she found that the terms and conditions...
Vaman Anant Prabhu Gaonkar (since Deceased through his legal represent ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 06/12/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 246/1992. The appellants were the applicants and the respondents were the respondents in said Land Acquisition Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case. 3. Vide notification bearing No. 22/132/88-RD, dated 24/11/1988, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 19/01/1989, land was acquired for the approaches to the Galgibaga bridge on National Highway 17 (re-alignment). This included land admeasuring 420 square metres from survey no. 4/1 of Village Loliem in which there was a structure and 17 coconut trees. The said structure belonged...
Pedro Francisco Pereira (deceased) Represented through Legal heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
1. The appellants challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional District Judge (II), South Goa, Margao and the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco dismissing the appeal and the suit filed by the appellants. 2. The suit was filed by the appellants claiming to be the owners in possession of a property known as Pedachem Orda, which bears a land registration no.13985. According to the appellants, the said property was bounded on the East by the property of Mariano Rosario Pereira, on the West by property of Serafino Rodrigues, on the North by the property of Gustinho Pereira and on the South by the property of Triphonio Godinho. According to the appellants, the property was gifted to Jose Vicente Pereira father of the appellant to Maria Pacheco ,Grand mother of the appellants by the Deed of Gift dated 16 June 1905. The Appellants described part of the property, that is survey no.178/3, is bounded on the East by Kacha road, on the West by a ditch...
Sebastiana Cardozo and Others Vs.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 2. Leave to amend the prayer clause to correct the date of the impugned order granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the respondent no.3-Town and Country Planning Board dated 22 November, 2011 and order passed by the South Goa Planning Authority dated 17 October 2011, in respect of the proceeding taken for demolition of structure in occupation of the petitioners. The Board has dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are mundcars of the house situated at Margao-Goa. A Notice came to be issued to the petitioners by respondent no.2-South Goa Planning and Development Authority calling upon the petitioners to demolish the structure as according to the Authority it was in violation of the planning laws. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal as provided under section 52 of the Goa Town and Country Plann...
Pacina D' Cruz, Vs. Andre Alexo D' Cruz and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Shri D. D. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 02.02.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the first appellate Court being final Court of facts, could have proceeded to decide the First Appeal, without formulating the points which arose for its determination, and without appreciating the evidence on record? (ii) Whether the first appellate Court was right in concluding that the suit house was a common house, jointly owned by the respondent No.1 along with the appellant and respondent No.2 when such was not the plea raised by respondent No.1 nor any proof was produced by the respondent No.1 in support of such a plea? (iii) Whether the respondent No.1 having approached the Court with the claim that the common wall had been already demolished by the Defendants, could get a relief against the paral...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Pandye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original respondent no.3 against the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 102/2004 dated 03.01.2009. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as follows : 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claimant Jitender filed the petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has claimed compensation on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car of respondent no.1 as well as the rider of the motor cycle of respondent no.4 on which the claimant was a pillion rider. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on 28.06.2003 at about 9.00 p.m. near Sadekar house Pajifond, Margao. At the relevant time of the accident, the claimant was the pillion rider of Taxi Hero Honda motor cycle No. GA-02-T-0506 driven by respondent no.4 and owned by respo...
Naresh Ramani and Another Vs. Village Panchayat of Curca and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 26 December, 2014, the petitions were directed to be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Both the petitions raise common grounds, are argued together, and are taken for disposal together. 3. The petitioner are brothers. They made application to the respondent no.1-panchayat seeking construction licence for proposed residential bungalow and compound wall in the property situated at Curca, village of Tiswadi Taluka in Goa. The technical clearance was granted in favour of the petitioner to carry out the work. On 27 March, 2012, an application was made to the Respondent no.1-Panchayat. On 26 June, 2012 the respondent-panchayat informed the petitioners that in view of the objections raised by respondent no.2-church, a resolution has been passed by the panchayat to withhold the issuance of licence to the petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter, filed appeals under se...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. All the above appeals were ordered to be taken up together as the Counsel appearing for the parties had contended that common substantial questions of law arise in all the above appeals. 2. The above appeals came to be admitted by this Court by an order dated 21st July, 2008. Thereafter, at the request of and by consent of the learned Counsel, the substantial questions of law came to be modified by an order dated 29th January, 2015. The modified substantial question of law by consent, reads thus: Whether the respondent is entitled to claim CENVAT Credit prior to 16/06/2005 on the basis of TR6 Challan, in terms of Rule 9 which was introduced on 16/06/2005? 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have pointed out that Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 clearly provides the requisite documents to be produced in order to avail of the CENVAT Credit. The learned Counsel further point out that the respondents have not produced any of such documents a...
The Executive Engineer Works Division VII (NH) Vs. Ravindra S. Kenkre, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ramani, learned counsel for the respondent.2. By this appeal, the judgment and award dated 30/03/2010 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, FTC, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 10 of 2009, has been challenged. The appellant was the respondent in the said case whereas respondent was the applicant. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case.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 12/11/2002, land was acquired from eight different villages for Ribander bypass from kilometers 143.00 to 153.200 kilometres on National highway 4-A. This included an area of 290 square metres of land from Chalta no. 24 (Part) of P. T. Sheet no. 22 of Panaji city and an area of 450 square metres from Chalta no. 25 (Part) of same P. T. Sheet no. 22 of Panaji cit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »