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.
Deputy Collector (LA), South Goa and Another Vs. Renato R. Dias, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-17-2015
1] Heard Mr. Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. C.A. Coutenho, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2] The original respondents-appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Fast Tract Court-I, South Goa in Land Acquisition Case No.91 of 2004 dated 15/12/2006, by which the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land i.e. for bharad land from Rs.24/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 100/- sq.mt. and for the paddy land from Rs.8/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 20/- per sq.mt. along with 30% solatium on the value of the land and the interest @12% per annum etc. Being aggrieved with the same, the original respondents have preferred this appeal, mainly on the ground that the learned Reference Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record properly. The Reference Court has also not taken into consideration the relevant sale instances and its comparative value. ...
Jaison Dias Vs. Ramesh Ramchandra Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 06/06/2013 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.51/2007. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has rejected the plaint against the respondent / original defendant nos.19 to 22 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C., for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, can be stated thus : That the appellant claims to be the co-owner of properties bearing Survey No.82/2, 82/7 and 82/12 situated at Orda, Candolim, Bardez, Goa. The appellant claims that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property along with the co-owners. Sometime in August, 2006, illegal tree and hill cutting operation was carried out in the said property by some unknown persons/ migrants, without the permission of the appellant or the other co-owners. It was contended that the hill cutting is proh...
Utsav Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Goa, through i ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Kevic Setalvad, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Fernandes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ of mandamus Order or direction against the Respondents to comply with or take further action in pursuance to the Order/direction dated 05.03.2013 passed in Writ Petition no. 49/2013 and further Order directing the Respondents to take appropriate steps in execution of tender process of HSRP dated 03.04.2012, in the State of Goa, and issue a letter of intent in favour of the consortium of Petitioners in pursuance to a tender notice dated 03.04.2012 wherein the consortium of the first and the second Petitioner had been declared as lowest and the successful bidder. The Petitioners have also amended the reliefs and sought an appropriate writ quashing the notice issued on 16.09.20...
Datta S. Nadkarni Vs. Salvador Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the acquittal of the first respondent/ accused from an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus: That the appellant and the respondent were good friends. The first respondent had approached the appellant on 03/11/2010, requesting for a financial accommodation of Rs.2 Lakhs, as he was in difficulty. Looking to their relationship, the appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the first respondent on loan basis?. On the same day, the first respondent passed a cheque for Rs.2 Lakhs in favour of the appellant, which was drawn on the account of the first respondent with Bank of Baroda, Margao Branch. When the cheque was deposited by the appellant for encashment on 25/04/2011, the same was dishonoured, which was intimated to the appellant on 30/04/2011. Thereafter, the appellant issued a statuto...
Colva Civic and Consumer Forum, through its authorised representatives ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nigel de Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4, Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 2. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to the NOC issued by the respondent No.3 dated 28/3/2007, as well as the construction licence dated 31/3/2007, issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.5. The petitioners have also sought a direction to quash the Certificate dated 2/3/2007, issued by the Deputy Collector/respondent No.4 with regard to the conversion of the subject land. 3. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has pointed out that the respondent No.5 has obtained the...
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through its Deputy Regional Dir ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-15-2015
1. By this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 (the Act of 1948, for short), the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Corporation, for short) is challenging the judgment and order dated 10/09/2007 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court (ESI Court) in ESIC Case No.7 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, ESI Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 77 of the Act of 1948, thereby holding that the respondent establishment is not liable to pay the contribution and interest for the period from 02/07/1977 to 30/06/1996. 2. On 22/10/2008, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the findings of the E.I. Court that claim for contribution has to be made by the corporation within 5 years from the date on which the claim arose and the claim beyond the said period is not tenable in view of proviso to clause (b) of Section 77(1-A), is vitiated in law? (b) Whether proviso to cla...
Madhu Nair Vs. The State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-14-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 2(y)(i) read with Section 8(2)of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (the Act, for short)'. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 Lakhs and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus: That PW1, who is the mother of the victim (PW2), who was then a girl, aged 6 years, is a neighbour of the appellant. The complainant PW1 is serving as a Sweeper at G.M.C., Bambolim. On 23/04/2009, after the complainant returned home from her duty, the victim PW2 had gone out to play with the neighbouring children. At about 22.00 hours, the complainant called her daughter for serving her food. At that time, the victim was complaining that she is having fever. PW2 also allegedly told her mother PW1 that she has pain in her private part. PW1 on checking found that the private part of the victi...
Bim Lama Vs. State of Goa through Public Prosecutor and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Court), Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No.14/2009. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act', for short), and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The period of detention already undergone, is directed to be set off. 2. The prosecution case may briefly stated thus, That on 17th January, 2009 at about 14.20 hrs., P.S.I. Punaji Gawas (PW-6) then attached to the Anti Narcotic Cell had received a specific reliable information that a male, native from Nepal, aged 20 to 25 years, fair complexioned of medium built, wearing long sleeves black col...
Glorio Rosario Furtado, (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs: and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 3(c), (i) and (j). 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. I have extensively heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 3(c), (i) and (j). 4. The main grievance of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that the learned Executing Court whilst passing the impugned Order has proceeded to examine the veracity of the Decree passed by the learned Judge whilst disposing of the suit filed by the Petitioners whereby, inter alia, the learned Judge directed the removal of the encroachment in an area of 765 square metres of the disputed property. 5. It is the contention of Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respectiv...
Abdul Chapparban Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Shri Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard finally with consent. 4. By this petition, the petitioner/ accused is challenging the order dated 30/04/2015, passed by the President, Children's Court at Panaji, whereby the President, Children's Court has refused to recall the prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2. 5. The brief facts are that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) read with Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Section 5(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012, before the Children's Court at Panjim. 6. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was staying along with the mother of the victim. The victim girl is said to be 11 years old. As per the complaint dated 26/02/2013, lodged by the complainant PW1 Roshan, who is the mother of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »