Mumbai Goa Court August 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.
Rajaram Naik Vs. The State of Goa, through the Secretary, Department o ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Prabhudessai waives service for respondents no.1 and Mr. P. Lotlikar waives service for respondent no.3. Heard finally with consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner (original defendant no.3) is challenging the order dated 21/1/2015 passed by the learned District Judge below application at Exhibit 87/D in Civil Suit No.3/2008. By the impugned order, the application (Exhibit 87/D) filed by the third respondent (original plaintiff), for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the third respondent has instituted civil suit no.3/2008 for permanent injunction in which the State of Goa is the defendant no.1, while the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa is the second defendant. The petitioner happens to be the third defendant in the suit. 4. As per the plaint allegations the case made out is that the third respondent which is a Private Ltd. Company was having a Diploma of Concession bear...
Kishor T. Naik Salgaokar and Another Vs. Ashok Tukaram Naik Salgaokar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Principal District Judge, Panaji, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 124/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has refused to condone delay of about two years and six months, in filing an application for restoration of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 73/2003, which was dismissed on default on 07.09.2009. 3. The brief facts are that, the dispute between the parties was referred to the learned Arbitrator, who passed an interim award on 29.01.2003. That award was challenged by the petitioners in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short) before the learned District Judge, Panaji, in Arbitration Application No. 73/2003. It appears that the peti...
Mahadev Sitaram Sinai Kakodkar and Another Vs. The Conservator of Fore ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 20.11.2006 on the following substantial question of law : (i) Whether the learned Courts below after finding that the appellants had proved that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit property which according to the appellants was wrongly included in survey nos. 98 and 97 and that the respondents had not proved that the entire land bearing Survey nos. 97/1 and 98/1 was reserved forest known as "Cudeladongor" belonging to the Forest Department were right in dismissing the appellants' suit? 3. Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that the Appellants are the owners in possession of a property known as "Ponsoibandulam" or "Zazabandavangon" situated at Colomb which is described in the Land Registrati...
Auduth Modu Timblo and Another Vs. Dilip Modu Timblo and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
1. All these Company Appeals involve common and connected questions of law and fact. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These four appeals represent two sets of cross appeals, one each by, Auduth Timblo (AT) being Company Appeal Nos. 1/2013 and 2/2013 and the other by his brother, Dilip Timblo (DT) being Company Appeal Nos. 7/2013 and 8/2013. It would be sufficient to set out the facts in Company Appeal No. 2/2013. Background Facts: 3. The brief facts are that Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Limited (SFIPL), (Company, for short) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) with authorised share capital of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each and 50,000 unclassified shares of Rs.100/- each. The paid up share capital is Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs), divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The Company is in the business of extraction and sale ...
Gomati @ Radha Tima Gaude and Others Vs. Dy. Collector and S. D.O., Po ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original applicants against the judgment and award passed by the leaned Principal District Judge, Panaji Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 55/1996 dated 02.04.2011 by which the claim under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The applicants/appellants have preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Initially, it was heard and decided by the Reference Court and the amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.15/- per square metres to Rs.23/- per square metre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the applicants/appellants have preferred First Appeal bearing No.137 of 2003 which was decided by this Court by judgment dated 13.08.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for adducing additional evidence. After the remand, the Reference Court has recorded evidence and after having heard both th...
Tanay Raghoba Mandrekar Vs. M/s. Sol Rio Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Through its ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Thali waives service for the respondent. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the original defendant is challenging the order dated 23/4/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim in Regular Civil Suit No.39/2006/B, by which the Civil Court has refused to refer the issue no.7 to the Mamlatdar for the second time. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 29/6/2015 passed by the learned Mamlatdar thereby refusing to set aside the order of dismissal of default and refusing to restore reference to file. 3. The brief facts are that in a suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner raised a contention based on his alleged mundkarial rights. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 11 issues. Issue no.7 which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: Whether the defendant proves that his late father Raghoba Krishna Mandrekar was ...
Suhasini S. Govekar and Others Vs. The Goa State Election Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Order: 1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 12.02.2015, passed by the Goa State Election Commission, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners, seeking disqualification of the respondent no.1 under Section 10 read with Section 11 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts are that the respondent no. 2 is elected as a Member from Ward No. 10 of Village Panchayat, Anjuna-Caisua on 16.05.2012. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the voters, as also the elected Members of Village Panchayat of Anjuna-Caisua. The petitioner no. 4 is said to be a public spirited individual and is a Government servant and he has taken up causes of vital importance to the public. The petitioners acquired the knowledge that the respondent no. 2 has got his birth registered at the Central Registry of Birth, Marriages and Deaths at Lisbon, under the Birth Registration No. 28-E-5/2006 on 05.05.2006. As such, according t...
Cidalia Rosa Paulina De Lourdes Almeida Bodade and Others Vs. Jose Ant ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent nos.1(a),(b),(c),(d),(e), (f),(g),(h) and respondent no.2. Heard finally, by consent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants are challenging the order dated 19/04/2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao in Port Civil Miscellaneous Application No.14/2013/II in Inventory Proceeding No.96/1986/A. By the said order, the application under Article 1425 of the Portuguese Civil Code (Portuguese Code, for short) filed by the appellants, who are interested persons, for correction of an error, is dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that Inventory Proceedings being Inventory Case No.96/1986 were initiated on the file of the Special(Comarca) Judge at South Goa at Margao in respect of the properties of estate leavers Shri Aluizio Caetano Jacinto Lourenco Roque Barretto Xavier and his wife Clara Aurelia Quiteria de Piedade Azaredo. These inventory proceedings were c...
Devendra Manguesh Naik Vs. Police Inspector, Mapusa Town Police Statio ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral Judgment: (K.L. Wadane, J.) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside F.I.R. No.82/1998 registered with the respondent. 2. On 24.3.1998, a complaint is filed by one Mr. A.G. Haldankar in respect of an accident at Peddem, Maupsa at Mapusa Police Station. The petitioner was called at Mapusa Police Station and informed about the complaint wherein the petitioner was purportedly implicated. 3. The petitioner visited Mapusa Police Station and he was informed that necessary intimation was given to him of further proceedings in respect of the said complaint. 4. In the year 2011, the petitioner applied for Batch of Heavy Vehicle and Taxi. The said application was forwarded to Mapusa Police Station for verification and clearance by the Police. 5. Upon inquiry, the petitioner was informed that the record reveals that a case was pending against him. The petitioner was shocked to note that FIR bearing No.82/1998 was registered dated 24.3.1998 a...
George Peter Mendes and Another Vs. Robert Mendes (now deceased), thro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondents. 2. Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in deciding the matter, without hearing oral arguments and on the basis of written arguments, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Heard finally with consent. 4. The brief facts are that the appellants, who are the plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 7/2005/D/F, for possession of a shop. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and order dated 31.08.2012. This was challenged by the appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No. 145/2012, before the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 (Fast Track Court), North Goa, Panaji. It appears that the appellants had filed an application (Exhibit-9), under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C., for short), for production of certain documents at the appellate stage. That application was filed on 05.10.2013. The first A...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »