Mumbai Goa Court March 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.
Kanchan Kumar Arun Thool Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Ms. M. Collasso,learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition inter alia seeks for a relief to direct the respondents no. 5 and 6 to restore the path way and construct the retaining wall of the nallah bearing survey no. 137/43 in the village Saligao, Bardez, Taluka. 5. On the last date when the matter was taken up or admission and hearing, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we called upon the Water Resource Department to inspect the site and examine the grievance raised by the petitioner. Accordingly a report was submitted by the Executive Engineer WDI at Panaji dated 27.2.2015 inter alia disclosing the fac...
Peter @ Petra Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is a case where a frolic ride in a boat, turned into a tragic accident, resulting into death of a young medical student and seriously injuring the other. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus:- That the complainant, Prateek Shukla alongwith his friends including now deceased Shrey Makhija and injured Sanjay Singh Rawat had come to Goa on a vacation. On 18.11.2010, the complainant alongwith his friends had gone at the Calangute beach. After sometime, Sanjay Singh Rawat and now deceased. Shrey Makhija had gone on a bumper ride in a boat. It so happened that the rider/mariner of the boat while returning back to the shore, suddenly took a turn, as a result of which, the bumper tied to the boat hit another stationary boat. The incident occurred between 15:...
State Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu Naik, (Major) and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the State has challenged the order dated 14/08/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Goa in Sessions Case No. 66/2013. The applicant-State is aggrieved by the impugned order, by which, in place of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), the learned Sessions Judge has framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of I.P.C. 5. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application, may be stated thus - The incident in question has occurred on 14/08/2013 at about 18.20 hours at Sun Shine Bar at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. According to the prosecution, the respondents/ accused i.e. Shailesh Naik and Vijay Karbotkar were already sitting at the bar and having a drink. It is said that now deceased Lavu along wi...
Kashinath Naik Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Taken up finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The brief facts are that the respondent no. 2 has filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short) against the petitioner herein, being Maintenance Application No.2/2013/A, which is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda, Goa. The Second respondent is claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the petitioner. According to the second respondent, she was married with the petitioner on 22/01/2007. After marriage, she had gone to reside with the petitioner at Raigini, Bandora, Ponda, Goa. Shortly thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather and the parties started staying separately. It appears that the petitioner had filed a Matrimonial Petition No.9/200...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Vs. Selma Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-20-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salcete, Margao (Presiding Officer for short) by which the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein is partly allowed and an amount of Rs.3,24,750/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty four thousand seven hundred and fifty only) is granted to the respondent no.1 herein together with 9% interest. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The above appeal is preferred by the respondent no.3 broadly on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer has ignored the fact of the contributory negligence. Secondly, amount of compensation granted to the claimant is disproportionate looking to the nature of the injuries and percentage of permanent disability caused to the claimant and amongst other grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. 4. Brief facts of the case may be stated as f...
Hazrat Ali Mohamad Gauns (since deceased through LR's) and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal was admitted on 17/2/2006 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the absence of framing specific points for determination in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 (a) or Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, could the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court said to be vitiated? (b) Whether the date of the registered Sale Deed dated 16/01/1987 between the appellants and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 be treated as deemed knowledge to bar the institution of the civil suit by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Section 3 of the Limitation Act? 2. Briefly the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: (a) The appellants (original defendants nos. 1 and 2) purchased under a sale deed dated 16/1/1987 a property known as Gorbhata Inam at village Ponda, (suit property) from respondent nos. 3 and 4 (original defendant nos 3 and 4), (b) On 12/8/1996, the respondent nos 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs no.1 and 2) filed a civil sui...
Sneha Saularam Bankar and Others Vs. Hanumant Vaman Pednekar and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-19-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, by which the claim petition of the claimants has been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claimants have filed the petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/-. The claimant no.1 is the widow of deceased Saularam and the claimant nos. 2 to 4 are his minor daughters. 5. On the day of the accident i.e. on 29.11.2006 at about 19.00 hours the deceased Saularam was walking on the road leading from Morjim to Tembwado-Mapusa after alighting from the bus. At the relevant time of the accident, the bus bearing registration No. GA-01-U-1262 came from opposite side in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and gave tremendous dash to Saularam due ...
Rajan Sagun Wadkar and Others Vs. Roshani Rajan Wadkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Both these cases are between the same parties. They involve common and connected questions. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Mrs. Roshani Wadkar, the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 14/2015 has filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short), which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim. The petitioner, Mrs. Roshani Wadkar has claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and for her two minor children, who are Petitioners No. 2 and 3. The maintenance is claimed against the respondent, Mr. Rajan Wadkar. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she was married with the respondent on 27.10.1994 and thereafter the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs on 16.04.1995. After her marriage, she went to reside with th...
M/s Hotel Satkar and Another Vs. Krishnanath Nanu Chavdikar and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Second Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 06.10.2005 on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh property [1998(7) SCC 184] and in view of the fact that the plaintiffs/appellants in the suit were enforcing the statutory obligation on part of respondent no. 1 to vacate the suit premises in view of the termination of licence n his favour, suit could be said to be barred by Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932? (2) Whether a true and correct interpretation of the agreement dated 1.4.1976, 10.9.1980, 1.4.1982, 1.4.1986, 1.4.1987 and 1.4.1988 the same could be considered as creating a lease in respect of suit hotel in favour of respondent no. 1? 3. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for ...
Jennifer Mascarenhas and Another Vs. Jose Antonio Domnic Dias and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri V. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Shri P. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash the Order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Adhoc District Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 2012. 3. The records reveal that the respondent no. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 161 of 2011 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Panaji, against the Petitioner and the respondent no. 2, inter alia, seeks for a permanent and mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs. An application for temporary injunction was filed therein, inter alia, to restrain the petitioners from doing any construction activity in the suit property and/or from changing the nature thereof in any manner. A reply and written statement was filed in the suit by the petitioners and the respondent no.2. The P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »