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.
Mabel Reeves Vs. Confraria de Igreja de Cortalim, represented by its a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 9 February 2015, the petition was directed to be taken up for final disposal. Respondents are served. Accordingly, petition is taken up for disposal. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-plaintiff challenges the impugned order dated 15 April 2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. 3. The petitioner had sought three amendments in the plaint. The first amendment was correction of the numbers of the defendants, second amendment was to state that one Alberto Reeves had acquired co-ownership right in the property after the death of his mother Mrs. Deodita, and his siblings, and the third amendment was to include a prayer that, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that defendants have no right and are in possession, possession of the property be delivered to the plaintiff. 4. To appreciate the nature of the ame...
Mariano Mesquita and Others Vs. Selva Raju Nadar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by District Judge, South Goa dated 11 August 2014 dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 136 days in filing an Appeal from Order. The petitioners in the appeal had challenged order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco dated 9 December 2013, dismissing their application for temporary injunction. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents. According to the petitioners they are heirs of one Marcal Mesquita who owned and possessed several properties including the one which was subject matter of the suit. According to the petitioners the respondents without any right had proceeded to carry out construction in the property. The petitioners accordingly filed a suit and also took out an application for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from carrying out any construction in the suit property. The Civil Judge...
Dr. Vivekanand Jawali @ Vivek Jawali, Chief Cardio Vascular and Thorac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the intervenor. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above writ petitions since they are filed against the summons dated 10/01/2014 issued to the petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji in Criminal Case No. IPC/265/2013/A. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. A complaint dated 21/12/2011 was lodged by Mrs. Antonieta Ribeiro D'Souza (intervenor) to the Officer incharge of Panaji Town Police Station against (i) Fortis Hospitals Ltd. (ii) Dr. Vivek Jawali (iii) Shri Abhinandan N. Dastenavar and (iv) Dr. Selwyn Colaco, in which she alleged as follows : On or about 30/08/2010, it was diagnosed that the intervenor suffered from heart ailment and a heart surgery was imperative. On 26/09/2010, the intervenor consulted Dr. Vivek Jawali at the clinic of...
Barbara Gomes Vs. Pratap Mardolkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16/08/2006, on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the first Appellate Court did not correctly construe the documents produced by the plaintiff, more particularly the certificates of usurpation issued by the Communidade, and other documents such as Consent Decree ? (b) Whether the first appellate Court had correctly interpreted the provisions of Code of Communidades regarding usurpation ? (c) Whether the first Appellate Court did not correctly interpret the documents produced by the plaintiff more particularly the certificates issued by the Communidade as also other documents which if correctly interpreted would have led to an opposite conclusion? 3. Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that the property belonging to the appellant is correspo...
Francisco Xavier Rose Almeida and Others Vs. Antonio Columban Wilson d ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 20th January, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether it was necessary for the courts below to have framed a issue/point for determination as to which party was in possession of the disputed portion? 2. Whether the courts below should have considered the evidence on record to find out which party was in possession and that having not been done, whether the judgment and order passed by the courts below should be said to be perverse? 3. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is a boundary dispute between the property belonging to the appellants and the respondent as, according to him, the property of the appellants is surveyed under No.58/9 of village Sernabatim and a portion thereof is surv...
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Laxmikant D. Naik Kar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors. 2. The above appeal and cross objection have been filed against the judgment and award dated 04/07/2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 2010. The respondents of the appeal, who are the cross-objectors, were the applicants in the said Land Acquisition Case, whereas the appellants were the respondents therein. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition 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 16/12/2004 and in two news papers (Sunaparant and Herald) dated 18.12.2004, land was acquired for the work of improvement and widening of road from old survey office to T.V.S. Show R...
Rohit Raghuvir Paingankar and Another Vs. Radha Nandalal Karlo and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao allowing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao dated 5 December 2011. 3. The respondents are legal heirs of one late Raghuir and late Shakuntala Paingankar. The original applicant Shakuntala was appointed as cabeca de casal on the death of Raghuvir. The petitioner no.1 had made an application for intervention as a interested party, which was allowed and a order was passed by the Civil Court to remove the said Shakuntala and appoint petitioner no.1. An Appeal From Order was filed and by order dated 24 July 2009, the matter was remanded back for disposal. In the meanwhile, Shakuntala expired on 11 October 2007. The proceedings were adjourn...
Bipin Mathurdas Thakkar Vs. Samir alias Sameer Dessai and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. Parties submitted that copies of relevant documents are on record. Hence records and proceedings from the lower Courts are not called for. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20/09/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao ('Appellate Court', for short) in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2014 and judgment and order dated 21/02/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Canacona ('J.M.F.C', for short) in Criminal Case No. 4/OA/NI/2012. The petitioner was the accused in the said criminal case whereas the respondent no.1 was the complainant. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 4. The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negot...
Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Bismark Facho and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. Heard Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/08/2007 passed by Goa Information Commission (Respondent no. 4) in Appeal No. 11/2007-08/Co-Op. 3. The petitioner is a registered housing society constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to Goa. The petitioner alleged that it has been formed to house the former and serving members of the Armed Forces of India and their families and is a private society receiving no aid or financial support from the Government but is a society constituted to look after the welfare of its own residents. The petitioner alleges that the respondent no.1 owns some land adjoining to the land of the petitioner and has been constantly harassing the petitioner society as he wishes to use the infrastructure of the petitioner to gain access to his lan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›