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.
Durgadas V. Parab Vs. Director of Sport and Youth Affairs
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
1. Heard Mr. Supekar, learned Counsel for the appellants in all the above first appeals and Ms. Bhandari, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent in First Appeals No. 176/2009 and 177/2009 and Mr. Rebello, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent in First Appeals No. 178/2009 and 179/2009. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals, since they pertain to the plots of land from the same property acquired under the same notification bearing no. 22/13/2006-RD dated 21.04.2006, published in the Official Gazette dated 18.05.2006. 3. The above appeals arise out of the judgment dated 02.05.2009, respectively passed in the Land Acquisition Cases No. 56/2008, 53/2008, 55/2008 and 54/2008 by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji (Reference Court, for short). 4. Land was acquired for construction of International Cricket Stadium at village Thivim in Bardez Taluka, vide the said notification as mentioned aforesaid. ...
Padmaja Rao, Proprietor of M/s. HI-TECH Medical Systems Vs. Vijaylaxmi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bharne, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shet, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22/12/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Private Criminal Case No. 350/OA/2010/B whereby the application dated 21/01/2013, filed by the complainant(petitioner) for production of certain documents and for leave to examine Mr. Sudesh Kudalkar as witness came to be rejected. 4. Mr. Bharne, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during his examination-in-chief, PW1, the complainant found that the reply to the legal notice sent by him to the accused (respondent) which was received subsequent to the filing of the complaint was relevant and should be produced. He submitted that the receipt of the statutory notice by the accused and reply dated 03/09/2010 sent by him are facts which are not denied ...
Kashinath Balu Gaonkar Vs. Sunita Krishnajirao Dessai and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Monteiro, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. By order dated 12/02/2015, it was made clear to both the parties that the revision application shall be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties waive service of notice after admission. Heard finally. 4. By this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/01/2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2014 and the judgment and order dated 15/03/2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 800/OA/2007/A. 5. The respondent no. 1 was the complainant in the said Criminal Case, whereas the petitioner was the accused therein. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal case. 6. The complainant had filed the said case against the accused f...
Maria Pereira and Others Vs. Dolorosa Christina Rodrigues, (now deceas ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. D'silva, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24/11/2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge 2, (FTC II), Margao (Appellate Court), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2002. 3. Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1992 was filed by the respondents against the petitioners, for injunction. In that suit, it was claimed that Shri. Pedro Francis Fernandes, that is the predecessor in title of the respondents herein had, by sale deed dated 01/06/1939, purchased a property known as Propriedade De Cima Lote D and the said purchased land having shape of irregular polygon was admeasuring 3409 square metres and after purchase by Pedro Francis Fernandes the said plot came to be registered under Land Registration No. 36.756 and it was inscribed in his name under Inscription No. 31199. During the survey under the Goa Land Revenue Code, the said plot was surveyed under chalta no. 2 of P. T. Sheet no. 34 of...
Antonio Menezes @ Anthony Menezes Vs. Mahesh Phadte and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. The original complainant filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2011. 2. Parties are referred to their original status. 3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The complainant ( Antonio Menezes ) filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 4. The accused is a resident of Panaji and introduced himself to the complainant that he deals in construction and selling of flats in the surrounding locality. 5. In the year 1994, the accused represented to the complainant when the complainant had been to Goa that he proposed to construct an apartment at Old Goa and the accused gave offer to purchase one single bed room flat in the said apartment. On representation of the accused, the complainant shown his willingness to purchase the flat. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the parties. ...
M/s. Agency Real Margao Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Authorised person Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. All the above appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since they are filed against the same common judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class C Court at Panaji (J.M.F.C., for short) in Criminal Cases No. OA/142/2006/C, OA/143/2006/C, OA/144/2006/C and OA/145/2006/C, respectively and involve common facts and law. 2. The appellant was the complainant in the said criminal cases whereas respondent no.1 was the accused therein. Parties shall be hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said cases. 3. The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act for short) which gave rise to the said criminal cases. Case of the complainant, in short, was as follows:- The complainant is a company carrying on business of selling liquor in Goa and in rest of India. The accused was the employee of the complainant and had collected the payment of sal...
Shankar A. Amonkar and Others Vs. Anthony Rebello and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16th August, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the appellate Court, after accepting in para 61 of the judgment, based on judgment of the Calcutta High Court that:- "in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession all the co-owners are necessary partners and for non-joinder of necessary partners, such a suit becomes incompetent." having declined to grant the relief of declaration as prayed in prayer (A) of the counter claim, erred in granting as per para 63 the relief that sale deeds are null and void? (b) Whether the appellate Court failed to consider that as per Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code proviso non-joinder of necessary parties is an incurable defect? (c) Whether the appellate Court erred in granting the relief for corre...
Sangappa V. Tenginakai (Major) Vs. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. Present appeal is preferred by the claimant against the Judgment and Award passed by the Presiding Officer, M. A. C. T., Mapusa dated 17th October, 2011, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 35 of 2009. The facts leading to the present appeal may be summarized as follows: (Parties are referred to their original status) 2. On 04/11/2007 at about 10.30 a.m. the applicant was proceeding from Camarcazana to Mapusa market by walk. When he reached near Bamboo Palace Hotel at Bhilwan, Mapusa, at that time one Honda motorcycle bearing No. GA 03 - D 1106 driven by respondent No. 3 came with a high speed and dashed against the backside of the applicant and therefore the applicant thrown away on the road and sustained waist pain and leg pen. After the accident applicant had taken treatment in Asilo Hospital, Mapusa. 3. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.1 was the insurer of the vehi...
Amina Bi Shaikh Vs. Chief Officer Bicholim Municipal Council and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for hearing. 2. A short issue that arises in this petition is whether the Municipal Council, while deciding an application for building permission can entertain the claim of a third party as regard access and refuse building permission, by adjudicating upon the issue of access. 3. The petitioner is a owner of the property situated at Village Bicholim, Goa. The petitioner was desirous of carrying out construction in the property. On 1 February 2008, she applied to the Chief Officer of Bicholim Municipal Council for building permission. The application was filed along with endorsement, questionnaire duly signed by the petitioner and the Civil Engineer, estimate for the proposed construction, Form I and Form XIV, schedule 2 and a copy of the plan. On 16 September 2008, the office of Deputy Chief Engineer granted permission to the petitioner. As per the procedure the matter came for consideration of...
Narayan Parsekar Vs. Umavati Mahadev Hadfadkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the District Judge, Mapusa dated 7 February 2014, Additional Director of Panchayats dated 23 January 2012 and Deputy Director of Panchayats dated 1 February 2006, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of construction carried out by the respondents no.1 and 2. 3. The petitioner is owner of a property situated at Mandrem, Pernem, Goa along with a residential house and a hospital. On the east side of the petitioner's property is a property owned by one Gurunath Shetye, part of which is occupied by the respondents no.1 and 2. The petitioner filed a complaint to the Village Panchayat, Mandrem that the respondents no.1 and 2 were illegally extending construction of their house beyond the original plinth, touching compound wall on the eastern side and the foundation of the house was damaging the compound of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »