Mumbai Goa Court September 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.
Franco B. Martins Vs. Archana Pai Kudchadkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-30-2015
1. Heard Shri Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior counsel with Mr. L. Raghunandan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Menino Teles, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant, filed complaint against the respondent no.1-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margaon Goa bearing Criminal Case No. 132/2013. 3. On 28.3.2013 the respondent no.1 issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the legal enforceable debt for an amount of Rs. Fifteen lakhs. The petitioner deposited the said cheque drawn on ICIC Bank for clearance through the Petitioner's bank i.e. Corporation Bank. 4. On 30th April, 2013 the bank of the respondent no.1 i.e. ICICI bank intimated the Corporation Bank that the said cheque has been returned unpaid with the remark payment stopped by drawer?. 5. On 10.5.2013 th...
Nagu Naik and Others Vs. Swapnesh Prabhu and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao in Claim Petition No.167 of 2008 dated 29th April, 2010, by which the claim of the claimants is dismissed. Therefore, the claimants have preferred this present appeal. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of son of the claimant nos. 1 and 2 and brother of the claimant no.3 namely Prasad Nagu Naik, due to motor vehicle accident, which took place on 18.5.2008 at about 18.30 hours near railway over bridge, Curchorem, Goa. 4. The Brief facts can be stated as follows:- The deceased Prasad Nagu Naik was the Conductor on the Mini-bus bearing no. GA-02-T-4339, which was proceeding from Curchorem bus stand to Usgaon-Ponda via Dabal. When the bus reached at the spot of accident, it turned turtled on its cleaner side/left side on the up...
Radhabai Vithal Pagui and Others Vs. Dr. Sulabha P. Keny and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Iftikhar Agha, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 30.7.2010 under the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether Pw1 having deposed as the attorney of the Respondent, on the cause of action, which was prior to the execution of Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2003 and the said witness deposing only as attorney, his evidence was impermissible in law as per the authority of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. (AIR 2005 SC 439)? (b) Whether in view of fact that Dw4, one of the co-owners having himself deposed that he did give consent himself, non proving of his written consent was not at all detrimental? 3. With regard to the first substantial question of law it is not disputed that PW1 who has deposed on behalf of the principal is the person whose father's house is located adjoining the s...
Quiteria Fernandes and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Collector and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for the respondents. 2. By this appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 5/9/2014 (below application Exhibit 13) passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No.7/2014. By the impugned order the application (Exhibit 13) filed by the respondents under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed thereby rejecting the plaint as being barred by limitation as also the under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, (The Act of 1894, for short). 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus:- That the appellants filed Civil suit no.7/2014 against the respondents for declaration that the suit property, namely, land admeasuring 2600 square metres bearing Chalta No.32 P.T Sheet No.65 of Margao city is not acquired and that the purported acquisition and taking over possession of the suit property is fra...
The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Willi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. By this appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act, for short), the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Corporation), is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court (E.S.I. Court) in E.I.C. No. 4/2005. By the impugned judgment, the application under Section 75 read with Section 77 of the Act filed by the respondent has been allowed, thereby holding that the respondent/original appellant is not liable to pay the contribution on the expenses incurred during the relevant period and further declaring that the order dated 05.01.2004 passed by the Corporation under Section 45-A of the Act is bad and void and further holding that the respondent is entitled to a refund of the amount as claimed in the application. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and owns and manages a Beach Resort. The Inspector of the Corporation had visited the ...
Uttam K. Pal Vs. The State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 8.10.2004 by which the petitioner is terminated and discharged from his services as Block Development Officer (BDO for short) with immediate effect. 2. Brief facts of the case may be summarised as follows:- On 4.1.1982, the petitioner joined the services of State, Government of Goa as Assistant Teacher. With the permission of Directorate of Education, he applied for the post of BDO on 12.9.1996. The respondent no. 4 selected the petitioner for the post of BDO on 3.1.1997, he was appointed initially on the probation for a period of two years. The ACRs from 1.4.1997 to 2002 were recorded as good, very good and satisfactorily. The petitioner has never been intimated about any adverse remark in the petitioner's ACR. On 8.10.2004, the petitioner was terminated from services and such order is passed by the authority based upon the adverse remarks passed somewhere after 31.3.2002 which w...
The Police Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 in person. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Respondent no. 2, who appears in person, waives service. 4. The petitioners/original respondent nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court for Goa at Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2/2014, by which the learned Judge in exercised of powers under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. directed the petitioners to register an FIR against one of the accused namely Shri Caetano Silva under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act( hereinafter referred to as the Act? for short) and other penal provisions, in ca...
Ramnath Narayan Pai and Another Vs. Eknath Narayan Pai and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, in Special Civil Suit No. 20/2005/A dated 26.07.2010 by which the learned Judge has decreed the suit. Hence, the appeal. 2. The description of the suit property is mentioned in para 15-B and business mentioned in para 15-C of the plaint are the suit property and herein after referred to as the suit property?. 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claim of the plaintiffs as can be seen from the pleadings is that one Narayan Pai having four sons and seven daughters out of which one son namely Srinath died. The plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and defendant no.1 are the sons of Narayan and plaintiff no.2 is wife of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no.4 is the wife of plaintiff no.3. The defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. Defendant nos. 3 to 9 are daughters of deceased Narayan Pai. 5. The defendant nos....
M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Communidade of Bordem ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent. 2. Both these Civil Revision Applications challenge the order dated 18/06/2015 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge at Mapusa in Civil Suit No.6/2015. By the impugned order, the applications filed by the defendant nos.1 and 2 under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., have been dismissed. As the Civil Revision Applications arise out of the same order and involve common and connected questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The first respondent Comunidade of Bordem is the original plaintiff while Shri Shantadurga Sangordekarin Devasthan (Devasthan, for short) and M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd, the petitioners in these Revision Applications are respectively the defendant nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. Bicholim Municipal Council and the Town and Country Planning Department are respectively the defendant nos.3 and 4 while State ...
Keith Gracias Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.P. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Redkar, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forth. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties waive notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused to quash and set aside the First Information Report No.31/2013 registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of the case may be summarized as under:- The complainant-respondent no.3 herein lodged a complaint to the Police Station, Panaji on 26th December, 2012 stating that she purchased Idea Mobile handset from M/s. Arte Digital World having its shop at Panaji. 5. The said mobile handset stopped working and had network problem initially though there was no problem with sim-card but...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »