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.
Mahesh Parsram Matta Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the First Information Report of Crime No. 522/2014 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in Margao Town Police Station, Goa. The investigation of the above crime is going on. The respondent no. 2 lodged this First Information Report on behalf of M/s. Sanda Well Being Private Ltd. (M/s. Sanda Company, for short). The said Company is presently known as M/s. Yours Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. 4. The above mentioned First Information Report is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that alre...
Santosh Laximan Fadte Vs. Nitish Suryakant Kavlekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'E' Court, Mapusa, (J.M.F.C.) in charge of 'D' Court, Mapusa, in Criminal Case No. 475/OA/2009/D dated 03.07.2010 by which the accused/respondent is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ('N. I. Act'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their original status. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated as follows: The complainant filed a complaint against the accused stating that the accused along with his wife had agreed to sell a plot No. 128 forming part of the property surveyed under no.77/1 of Village Pilerne of Bardez Taluka Goa to the complainant for total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. 4. The complainant accordingly paid part consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- by two cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each dated 28.01.2009 drawn on the Bank of India, Bicholim Goa. 5. The complainant states that s...
Kunda Madhukar Shetye and Others Vs. Shaila Subrao Shetye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these Appeals From Order arise from the same suit and are between the same parties and they have been argued together, and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Appeal From Order No.54/2012 challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Special Civil Suit No.2/2012 dated 25 June 2012 in the application for interim relief filed by the appellant-original plaintiff. The Appeal From Order No.8/2015 is filed by the original defendants No.1 to 4 in the same suit challenging the order NH 6 AO Nos.54/2012 and 8/2015 dated 2 February 2015 dismissing the application filed by them under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for modification of the order dated 25 June 2012. 3. The parties to these appeals, Kunda Madhukar Shetye that is the original plaintiff, defendant No.1 Shaila Subrao Shetye, defendant No.2 Shriram Gajanan Shetye, defendant No.3 Pandurang Gajanan Shetye and defendant No.4 Vijay Gajanan Shetye, are relate...
Rama Dattu Gaonkar and Another Vs. Bhaurao Vithal Ghaisas (since decea ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal was admitted by this Court by an order dated 24.10.2008 on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the First Appellate Court could have struck off the name of the defendant no.2 from the cause title of the suit and further struck off the written statement filed by the defendant no.2 in RCS No. 43/86, on the plea that the Managing Committee was not defending the suit in a representative capacity, and there was non compliance of the provisions of the Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding the fact that no such objection was raised/taken before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court? 2. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property is perverse? 3. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appe...
Zacarias Mendes Vs. Milton Olumpia Marques and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Other Backward Class, is challenging the order of validation of caste certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 18.03.2014 in favour of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 claims to be belonging to Christian Kharvi community which is categorized as Other Backward Class. Respondent no. 1 tendered an application to respondent no. 2 for issuance of caste certificate on 26.04.2012. Alongwith the application, respondent no. 1 tendered report of Talathi dated 26.04.2012, residence certificate dated 26.04.2012 and affidavit dated 26.04.2012 sworn by office bearers of Traditional Fisherman Association, Nerul, BardezGoa. On consideration of the application tendered by petitioner, caste certificate came to be issued in his favour on 27.04.2012. According to petitioner, respondents have issu...
Sgn. Ldn. A. P. Fernandes Vs. Annette Blunt Finch and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
The above Appeal was taken up by the Division Bench in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 02.10.2014 in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. 2. We have heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and we have heard Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel, who sought leave to address the Court. 3. Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has pointed out that the Appellant had initiated Inventory Proceedings in the year 2000 to partition the asset of his father namely Alex Francis Xavier Fernandes. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the list of assets was filed by the Cabeca de Casal on 02.01.2001 and objections to such list were filed on 18.01.2002 by the interest parties. Thereafter, the mother of the Appellant expired on 17.06.2004 and the Inventory Proceedings continued also to partition the ...
Anil Govind Naik Vs. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. At the request of Shri Rohit Bras de Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, leave to amend. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Shri R.B. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Shri R. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 . 3. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. The above writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction that the Memorandum dated 20th December, 2014 bearing No. SMC/PHSS/2014-15/67 issued by respondent No.4 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under the Goa School Education Act, 1984, Rules of 1986 and the CCS Conduct Rules as patently illegal, unconstitutional and for a writ directing the respondent No.4 to withdraw the report dated 30.1.2015 and the recommendations dated 31.1.2015. 5. Before w...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Coca Cala Beverages Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 21.4.2009 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, the service tax paid on mobile phones used by employees/staff of a manufacturing company would be eligible for cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding their the Board's Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 specifically clarifying that service tax paid on mobile phone is not eligible for cenvat credit is in applicable under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 3. Ms. Linhares, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that as per the circular dated 20.6.2004 at clause 2.8, mobile phones are not covered. The learned counsel has further pointed out that as the mobile phones were not covered and considering the saving clause in...
Krishna B. Naik Vs. State of Goa Through its Chief Secretary, With his ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri H. D. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. D. J. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 2. The above writ petition, inter alia, seeks for the writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4, School to withdraw with immediate effect and forthwith the advertisement published in the local newspaper 'Navhind Times' on 08/10/2008. A further relief sought is to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to be appointed by promotion to the post of L.D.C. cum Librarian in terms of the Circular dated 15/06/1987 read with Rule 79 of the Education Rules, 1986. The petitioner has also prayed for a further relief to quash and set aside the letter of appointment dated 15/11/2008 of the respondent no. 5 and a letter of approval dated 0...
Vishnu Mahadev Prabhu, (Since deceased-represented by his Legal Repres ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1, 3 to 5, Mr. L. Raghunandan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and Shri D. J. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6. 2. The above writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction or order under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19/06/2007 passed by the respondent no. 1 to the extent it relegates the Comunidade to a Civil Suit thereby refusing to take action under the Statute to demolish the disputed structure. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that he is a component of Comunidade of Usgao and that the Comunidade is the owner in possession of the property bearing Survey No. 207/1 of Usgao village. It is further their case that the respondent no. 6 obtained a permission from the local panchayat ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »