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.
Malini Murlidhar Nair and Another Vs. Rajan Handa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-02-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Heard finally by consent. 2. The brief facts are that, the first respondent has filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.26/2011 for specific performance of a MOU against the petitioners, (defendants no.1 and 2) and the respondent no.3 (defendant no.3). The petitioners were issued with the suit summons. The bailiff report dated 10/6/2011 in respect thereof reads as under: This is to certify that I had visited at Piedade Divar to serve this summons to Def No.1, 2 and 3 I met the def no.1,2 and 3 and I explained the contents of the summons to them in Konkani but they refused to accept the summons also they did not permit me to affix the summons on the main door of the house as required O.5. R.17 of the C.P.C. The def no.4 Mt. Michael Sequeira serve through wife Re at Porgovaddo Piedade Divar and I handed over the duplicate copy of the summon along with all annexu...
Sita Shripad Narvekar and Others Vs. Auduth Timblo
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The notice issued to the respondent indicated that the appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel, the appeal was heard finally. 3. Admit. The respondent waives service of notice of final hearing. 4. The above appeal challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji dated 5/03/2015 whereby an application under Order 7 rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents came to be allowed. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that there were disputes between the appellants and other family members of the appellants which came to be settled and a consent decree was passed dated 20/04/2000 settling the claims of the parties. It appears that the respondent herein had facilit...
Sanjay Gadekar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Ms. Dolorosa Chiquita Tulkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the rejection of his application for furlough. 5. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has almost completed sentence for about 11 years. The petitioner filed an application for grant of furlough. Under the Goa Prisons Rules, a prisoner sentenced to the life imprisonment is entitled to the furlough on completion of three years of actual imprisonment for a period of 28 days. The application of the petitioner is rejected mostly on two grounds by the respondent no.2. Firstly, the Superintendent of Police, South ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›