Mumbai Goa Court July 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.
Suresh Rajaram Anulekar and Another Vs. The State of Goa, Through Chie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both the above Writ Petitions were taken up together as it was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are identical. 2. Heard Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 and Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the short point for consideration in the above Writ Petitions is whether the learned Judge by passing an order allowing the respondent no.4 to be impleaded in the suit filed by the petitioners has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, which would call for interference by this Court. The other order challenged in the present...
Milagrina Araujo and Others Vs. Mahesh S. Kambli and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original claimants, dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal III, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 49/2009 dated 11.12.2009. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows : The claimant no.1/appellant no.1 is the widow and claimant nos.2 to 5/appellant nos. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Mr. Joaquim Araujo, have filed the Claim Petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending inter-alia that on 27.09.2008 the deceased Mr. Joaquim Araujo was proceeding to Mormugao Port Trust to join his duties. He was riding his scooter bearing registration No. GA-02-K-2515. The respondent no.2 came from behind in a truck bearing No. GA-01-T-6774 and was proceeding from Margao to Vasco. At the relevant time of the accident, the respondent no.2 drove the truck in a rash an...
Jency Leocadia Costa e Pereira and Others Vs. Aleixinho Fernandes (dec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellants- original plaintiffs are challenging the judgment and order dated 20/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No.68/2003, thereby confirming the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.31/01/III by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao. 2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the following substantial questions of law arise in the appeal: (i) Whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaring the orders passed by the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (the said Act) as null and void? (ii) Whether Section 31(2) of the said Act would bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit, seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar (or other authorities under the said Act) be declared as null and void? 3. The parties were put to notice about the aforesaid substantial questions of law. Th...
Rajendra A. Haldankar Vs. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard forthwith by consent. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the entire selection/recruitment process and selection of the respondent no.5 to the post of Deputy Director(Fire Services). 2. On 14.6.2013, the Goa Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement for the post of Deputy Director (Fire Service). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 applied for the post. Petitioner's service conditions are governed by Goa General Services, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Group A? Gazetted Post Recruitment Rules, 2006. 3. On 18.12.2013 the Selection Committee/Interview Committee of the Goa Public Service Commission held the interview of the petitioner as also of the respondent no. 5 namely Nitin Raikar. From the official website of the Goa Public Service Commission, it was revealed that the respondent...
Sangamma Kolkar and Another Vs. Vasudev Gaonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-23-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original claimants against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salcete, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 173/2008 dated 23.04.2010, by which the learned Presiding Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,500/- together with 9% interest inclusive of the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the parents of the deceased came to this Court. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The claimants/appellants have claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of their son Manju Kolkar in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 03.09.2008 at about 17.10 hours near Samson Bar. At the relevant time, the deceased Manju was proceeding on Hero cycle along with pillion rider Shabir from Amori air-conditioned family bar and restauran...
P. Beenitha Vs. Jose C.R. Pires and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-23-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original claimant against the judgment and award dated 20.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, in Claim Petition No. 6/2004 by which the learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the Claim Petition. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The claimant/appellant was 6 years old student residing at Government Quarters at Altinho, Panaji. On the day of the accident i.e. on 17.08.2000 at around 01.30 p.m. the claimant/appellant had returned from the school along with other children and was on the side of the road, at that time the respondent no.1 who was driving the vehicle involved in the accident gave dash to the claimant/appellant. The motor vehicular accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. motor vehicle bearing registration No. GA-01-G-0640 belonging to the respondent no.2. The accide...
Remediana Fernandes Vs. The Passport Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that: It is the contention of the Petitioner that the birth date of the Petitioner as reflected in the birth certification of the Petitioner is 17.04.1969. It is further her case that in all public documents such as the driving licence, PAN card, election card, the date of birth of the Petitioner is shown as 17.04.1969. It is further her case that the Passport issued to the Petitioner bearing no. G9596698 by inadvertence, the date of birth of the Petitioner is shown as 17.04.1963 which is clearly an error. The Petitioner states that when she realised about the said mistake in the date of birth as shown in the passport, she i...
State of Goa Vs. M/s. Caryl Pharma and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents from an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(I) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act, for short). 2. Brief facts are that PW1 Mrs. Jyoti Sardessai, who is the complainant in this case, and a Drugs Inspector, had visited the premises of M/s. Matrix Pharma, Ponda, Goa on 14/01/2004 and collected the sample of a medicine 'Caryrox', Batch No.C202, which is a patent and proprietary medicine. It is a suspension of a generic drug 'Roxithromycin'. The drug was manufactured by the respondent no.3 of which the respondent no.4 is a proprietor under loan license from the respondent no.1, of which the respondent no.2 is a proprietor. The manufacturing date of medicine is July, 2002 and the expiry was shown as June 2004. According to the prosecution, the sample was collected as per the established procedure. When the sample was sent for analysis by the State Laboratory in Go...
Narayan Waingankar and Others Vs. Archdiocese of Goa and Daman Pacopat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the original defendants are challenging the concurrent finding, by which the suit filed by the respondent/original plaintiff, for mandatory and permanent injunction, has been decreed. 2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit simpliciter for injunction was maintainable? 2. Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit in the absence of relief of declaration of title ? 3. The parties were put to notice and have been heard on the aforesaid substantial questions of law and the appeal is being disposed of accordingly. 4. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus : That the respondent filed a suit against the appellant no.1. According to the plaint allegations, the respondent is a religious institution and the suit was filed under the General Power of Attorney dated 30/06/1994 of father Victor Rodrigues. It was the material ...
Jeevan Gaonkar Vs. State Bicholim Police Station
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondents. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 4. By this petition, the petitioner/ accused seeks to challenge the order dated 10/07/2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim in Criminal Case No.91/S/2013, thereby permitting the Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) to cross-examine PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar. 5. Brief facts are that the petitioner is facing prosecution for having assaulted the husband of PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar. It prima facie appears from the police statement of PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar that she had actually witnessed the assault by knife by the petitioner on the victim. In her Examination-in-Chief, PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar stated that on the date and time of the incident, she heard some shouts from outside and when she came out, she saw that her husband had a bleeding injury on his stomach. In view of the discrepancy ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »