Mumbai Goa Court June 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.
Varun Beverages Ltd., Earlier Varun Beverages (International) Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 27/03/2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No.26/OA/NI/10/D. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the first respondent from an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) 2. The appellant/ complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the Magistrate. The complainant is marketing soft drink /packaged drinking water. The first respondent was a retailer, selling the said soft drinks and packaged drinking water. The appellant used to supply the soft drinks to the first respondent in respect of which, bills used to be raised. It was contended that as on 31/03/2009, the first respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,212/- (comprising of 2,32,272/- towards the price of soft drink and Rs.59,940/- being the cost of empties i.e. bottles and crates lying in possession of the fir...
Rose Publicity Through its Proprietor Shri.Lawrence Cruz D'Souza Vs. ' ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Mr. S. D. Patil, the learned counsel waives service for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this revision application the petitioner “ original complainant is taking exception to the judgment dated 29th October, 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.49/2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the criminal revision application filed by the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 thereby setting aside the order dated 19th March, 2012, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji, had issued process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as to 'the N. I. Act') against the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is in the advertising business. The petitioner had entered into a campaign agreement of an advertisement upon the hoardings situate...
M/s. Leading Hotels Vs. Anthony Mendes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Upadhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, Shri D. Lawande, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No.5 and Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.6 to 10. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice. 3. We have heard extensively Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Shri S. Updhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3. The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised a specific ground that the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 to 4 is...
State Vs. Shivanand Bishirotti
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
1. By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondent, from an offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: That the incident in question had occurred on 28.11.2004 at about 6:15 a.m. at Sastiwado, Bicholim, in front of the house of one Karapurkar. It is stated that now deceased, Dwarkanath Sirsat was going for a morning walk, when a truck bearing registration no. KA-22-C-8292 came from behind and gave a dash to Dwarkanath Sirsat, in which he sustained grievous injury. According to the prosecution, the deceased as well as the offending truck were proceeding from Assonora to Bicholim and it is claimed that the truck had gone to the right side and had given a dash to the deceased. The truck went ahead and stopped. The driver saw behind and on seeing that the deceased was lying on the road, fled away. Further, according to the prosecution, the accid...
The Goa Foundation and Another Vs. The North Goa Planning and Developm ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition filed by the petitioners inter-alia prays for an appropriate writ to call for the records relating to the sanctions granted vide order dated 29.11.1991 and subsequent revisions/ extensions dated 27.3.1995, 1.10.1996 and 16.07.1997 to the construction of the respondent no.7 and after going through the legality of such permissions to build, if any, quash and set aside the same. The petitioners have also sought for a relief to quash the approval of the respondent no.3 dated 14.06.1991 and also for a direction to the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 to demolish any construction raised on the said plot as a consequence of such permissions. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case based on the record in the above Petition are that the respondent no.2 - Government of Goa issued an advertisement inviting offers for the construction of a hotel in Panaji at Gaspar Dias beach on 07.03.1977. On 28.03.1977, M/s. V. M. Salgaonkar Private Limited submitted a proposal for t...
Rajendra D. Harmalkar Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner/workman challenges the order of dismissal from the services dated 10.03.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Mumbai in Reference No. CGIT-1/32 of 2007 dated 11.03.2013. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a casual employee at Air Fueling Station (AFS) at Dabolim airport by the respondent. The petitioner was involved in attending the work relating to refueling of aircrafts, driving/assisting driver of fueling vehicles, repairs, maintenance of the vehicles etc. In the year 1988, the petitioner/workman was appointed as a Refueling Helper. Although, the appointment of the petitioner was made without any regard to the educational qualification or age restriction still the petitioner/workman submitted a copy of SSLC which he had obtained through Open School appearance under...
Goa Foundation Vs. Captain of Ports and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, is seeking to recall the Lease dated 30.04.1979 and to rescind such lease. The other relief sought by the Petitioner is for a direction to the Respondent no. 2 to prosecute all the concerned officials involved in the grant of such lease. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that it is the contention of the Petitioners that the Indian Ports Act 1908 has been extended and brought into force in Goa on 01.01.1966. It is further their case that the said Act mostly deals with port and port charges payable thereunder and incidental matters covered thereof. It is further their contention that Section 4 of the Act invests powers on the Government to extend the provisions of the Act to any part of any navigable river or channel which leads to a Port. It is further their case that pursuant to sub-section (3) of the said Section, it is permissible to define the line of the port with reference to jetties, landing places, docks, etc. It is furth...
Georgina Isidorio Mascarenhas Vs. The Goa State Election Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the first respondent. The second respondent, Shri Aleixo A. Pereira, in person. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.06.2015, passed by the first respondent, Goa State Election Commissioner in Petition No. 1/2015. By the impugned judgment, the Election Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner from being a Member of the Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata, Salcete Goa, under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act of 1994, for short). 3. The brief facts are that the second respondent is a voter and is a resident of House No. 150 of Village Panchayat of Majorda-Utorda-Calata, Salcete, Goa. The petitioner happens to be an elected representative from Ward No. II of the said Village Panchayat. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner, Isidorio Mascarenhas @ E...
Vishram Krishna Kantak, Through Power of attorney Shri Shantanand V. K ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. R. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.4 to 12 and Mr. P.A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.13 to 22/petitioners in Writ Petition No.487 of 2014. 2. At the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.487/2014, leave to delete respondents no.2 and 3 is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. Upon extensively hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the main grievance of Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the learned Judge by the impugned order whilst exercising jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code varied the order...
Rajan Banawali Vs. Dinesh Shirodkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation granted by the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete, at Margao(Presiding Officer? for short) in Claim Petition no.163/2008. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- Claimant filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation based on structure formula. On 29.8.2007, at about 03.30 hours, the claimant was proceeding from Mumbai to Margao. He was driving the vehicle namely Swaraj Mazda bearing no.GA-02-U-8686, owned by Shri Nooruddin Shaikh/respondent no.3. When he reached at Old Goa bypass road, all of a sudden the front right side tyre of the vehicle burst, as a result of which, the claimant lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident with anoth...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »