Mumbai Goa Court January 2016 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.
Akbar Hussain Khan Vs. Saira Khan
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges two judgments and orders, one dated 30/5/2015 and the other dated 23/2/2012. Both these judgments and orders have been delivered in Criminal Revision applications filed against the orders impugned therein. Now, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge in this writ petition to the judgment and order dated 30/5/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no.127/2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. 3. After grant of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, the petitioner raised a challenge and pleaded for modification of the order of maintenance by filing another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a change in the circumstances. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 8/...
Akbar Hussain Khan Vs. Saira Khan
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges two judgments and orders, one dated 30/5/2015 and the other dated 23/2/2012. Both these judgments and orders have been delivered in Criminal Revision applications filed against the orders impugned therein. Now, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge in this writ petition to the judgment and order dated 30/5/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no.127/2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. 3. After grant of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, the petitioner raised a challenge and pleaded for modification of the order of maintenance by filing another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a change in the circumstances. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 8/...
Tika Bahadur Bhandari Vs. State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent. 3. Heard finally, by consent. 4. This Revision Application challenges the order dated 18/06/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby directing framing of charge against the revision applicant and his co-accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant. He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P....
Tika Bahadur Bhandari Vs. State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent. 3. Heard finally, by consent. 4. This Revision Application challenges the order dated 18/06/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby directing framing of charge against the revision applicant and his co-accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant. He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P....
Mayfair Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Represented by its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. This Writ Petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 03/07/2006, passed by the President, Co-operative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Cooperative Appeal No.14/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 07/03/2003, delivered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Central Zone, Panaji. The effect of the dismissal of the Co-operative Appeal, has been that the application, filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to the State of Goa at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act, for short), does not raise any dispute under Section 91 and is, therefore, not tenable before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 2. The case of the petitioner- society before the Assistant Registrar was that a group of persons organized themselves for the purpose of forming a Co-...
Heniriqueta D'Souza (Deceased through her legal representative) Isabel ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The controversy involved in this petition has witnessed quite a tumultuous journey. The matter has been travelling from one forum to another forum and then to the High Court and once again back to the original forum or the revisional forum or the appellate forum. At the centre of the controversy is a question “ whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a mundkar in view of Section 3 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act?, for short) or in view of definitions contained in Section 2(p) and Section 2(n) of the Act. So far as Section 3 is concerned, the controversy has been set at rest by the judgment delivered on 18/12/2013 in W.P.Nos.457/2010 and 266/2008, when the issue was referred to it by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has taken a certain view with regard...
Nayan @ Chandrakala Chandrakant Borkar Vs. Gurudas Hari borkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. Heard Shri John Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, waives service. 3. The Appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, FTC-1, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal no. 110/2014 by which, the came to be dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The Respondent in the present Appeal filed a suit against the Appellant bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 62/2007/F before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, for eviction of the Appellant from the suit house and for perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant from entering the suit house. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, decreed the suit on 09.05.2014. 5. Being aggrieved with the same, the Appellant filed an Appeal against the Respondent...
The Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII (Roads) Vs. Ulhas Gopinat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. The appellants challenges the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, North Goa at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 35/2010 by which the learned Reference Court has allowed the reference of the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (the Act? for short) and enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.202/- per square metre. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred as per their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- An area of 140 square metres belonging to the applicant/respondent herein was acquired from survey no. 43/7 situated at Madkai Village in Ponda Taluka for the purpose of construction of a road from main road Madkai, Tonca to Satki Lake in V.P. Madkai in Ponda Taluka. 4. The respondent issued and published notification dated 29.12.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.8.2006. The award was passed on 31.12.2007 by the Land Acquisitio...
Mayfair Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Represented by its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. This Writ Petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 03/07/2006, passed by the President, Co-operative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Cooperative Appeal No.14/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 07/03/2003, delivered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Central Zone, Panaji. The effect of the dismissal of the Co-operative Appeal, has been that the application, filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to the State of Goa at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act, for short), does not raise any dispute under Section 91 and is, therefore, not tenable before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 2. The case of the petitioner- society before the Assistant Registrar was that a group of persons organized themselves for the purpose of forming a Co-...
Heniriqueta D'Souza (Deceased through her legal representative) Isabel ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The controversy involved in this petition has witnessed quite a tumultuous journey. The matter has been travelling from one forum to another forum and then to the High Court and once again back to the original forum or the revisional forum or the appellate forum. At the centre of the controversy is a question whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a mundkar in view of Section 3 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) or in view of definitions contained in Section 2(p) and Section 2(n) of the Act. So far as Section 3 is concerned, the controversy has been set at rest by the judgment delivered on 18/12/2013 in W.P.Nos.457/2010 and 266/2008, when the issue was referred to it by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has taken a certain view with regard to heri...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »