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.
Avinash Cabral and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Rivakar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.and Mr. Shet waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are the accused in Session Case No. 22/2015 pending on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa at Panaji are seeking quashing of the charge sheet/proceedings. 5. The prosecution case as per the complaint filed by the respondent no.3, who is the wife of the respondent no.4/victim on 16/10/2014, is that on 16/10/2014 at about 17.00 hours when the respondent no.4 was standing near the truck at the fish market, he was assaulted by the petitioner no.1 by a hockey stick/iron rod on his leg and other parts of his body. It is stated that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 had caught hold of the shirt of respondent no.4. On the basis of complaint lodged by r...
Minguel Santan Cruz @ Philip and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Co ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Rivakar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.and Mr. Shet waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are the accused in Criminal Case No. IPC/8/2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, D? Court, Panaji are seeking quashing of the charge sheet. 5. The brief facts are that the complainant/injured Avinash Cabral is in the business of pisciculture. The petitioners also belong to the fishermen community. The incident in question is alleged to have occurred on 12/9/2014 at about 19.30 hours in front of Avinash Bar. It is said that Avinash along with his friend one R. Harmalkar (complainant) were standing in front of the bar when the petitioner no.1 along with his son Neon Cruz his two daughters namely, Diana Cruz and Nazia Cruz came there and ...
Ajit Sukhijia Vs. Edgar Francisco Valles and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ther Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service. 3. The above Petition takes exception to the Orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, whereby five questions put to Dw.1 in his cross examination, came to be disallowed on the ground that such question is irrelevant. 4. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the learned Judge has erroneously refused such questions as, according to him, the questions are very material for deciding the matter in controversy. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the learned Judge was not justified to interrupt the cross on irrelevant ground and, as such, cause grave prejudice to the Petitioners. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the cross examination is a strong weapon in...
Shangrilla Apartments Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. M/s. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment : (Per F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. M. B. da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. V.R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to 5. 2. The above appeal, inter alia, challenges the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No.130/2000 dated 7th July, 2009 whereby the suit filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce three documents, inter alia, consisting of correspondence with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the confirmation of the members of the appellant-Society. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents points out that in case this Court allows production of the said documents, evidence would have to be recorded to examine the veracity of such ...
Dajvip V. Patkar Vs. Vina D. Patkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Shri Khandeparkar, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 22.05.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 09.01.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco-da-Gama, rejecting the application (Exhibit-10) filed by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the criminal revision may be stated thus: That the parties are husband and wife. They were married on 27.08.2008 and the marriage is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Bardez at Mapusa. Sometime thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather and disputes arose between the parties. It is undisputed that both, the petitioner and the respondent have filed separate matrimon...
IDBI Bank Limited Vs. State of Goa, By Chief Secretary, Secretariat an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition the IDBI Bank Ltd., which is a secured creditor, is challenging the order dated 24th July, 2014 passed by the District Magistrate / Collector, South Goa, District “ Margao, disposing of an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act of 2002', for short) 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner had sanctioned aggregated loan facility of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (rupees five crores only) to the respondent No.3 on 19th April, 1997, as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. As the respondent No.3 ('borrower' for short) has defaulted in the matter of repayment of the dues, the loan account was classified as a non-performing asset. It appears that the petitioner issued a demand noti...
Jayashri N. Rahebhosle @ Bimabai Rauji Rane Sardessai Vs. Vijay Raghob ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. 2. Heard finally with consent. 3. The dispute is about the construction of a house by the first respondent. The appellant/ plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents, seeking injunction, restraining the first respondent from effecting the construction and also seeking a direction to the second and third respondents for taking action against the first respondent. It appears that the learned trial Court had passed an order, by which the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. That order was passed on 03/01/2014. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application exhibit 29 on 09/04/2014, purportedly under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C., for short) for taking action against the first respondent for breach of order of status-quo. It appears that another application at exhibit 33 was filed for similar relief. The record shows that the learned Trial Court had called fo...
Venkatesh Sadanand Pai Vs. Kanchan A. Shenvi Kakodkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-03-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 16/12/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Quepem, by which, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was working as a teacher in New Educational Institute, Churchorem, where the husband of the first respondent/ accused was an Headmaster. This is shown to be the reason for acquaintance between the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant came with a case that the first respondent had approached him, for a hand loan from time to time to meet her 'urgent requirements'. According to the appellant, for a period from June 2006 to December, 2007, the appellant had advanced various amounts ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.80,000/- to the respondent, totalling to Rs.7 lakhs. The first respondent had promised to repay the said ...
Pramod Mutalik Vs. The State of Goa, Department of Home, Through Publi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-02-2015
1. Heard Mr. Nagesh Takbhate, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forth. The learned Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the respondents and thereby banned the entry of the petitioner in the State of Goa. Hence, the present petition under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The brief facts of the case may be summarized as follows:- The petitioner is the leader of the organization namely Sri Ram Sene?. Prior to the ban, the petitioner had been to Goa for several times and during his stay at Goa, he visited temples in Goa to seek blessings from the Almighty. 5. The petitioner is doing social activities in a peaceful manner which has irked certain individuals and organizations who cherished in tolerance towards the very right raisin...
Carlton Fortes Vs. Devkikrishna Ravalnath Devasthan Pandavada and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri J.A.Lobo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri V.R.Tamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, waives service. 3. The notice issued to the respondents also indicated that the appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 4. The above appeal challenges the order dated 21st of June 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No.34/2011/B whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the respondent no.1 came to be allowed and consequently, the plaint filed by the appellant came to be rejected. 5. The brief facts of the case may be summarized as follows:- The suit came to be filed by the appellant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »