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.
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...
Sangappa V. Tenginakai Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa in Criminal Case No.46/P/2009/B thereby dismissing the private complaint filed by the applicant. 3. The applicant, who has submitted his argument in person maintains that the impugned order has been passed without applying mind to the facts available on record and therefore is arbitrary and perverse. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State fairly submits that some aspects of the matter, which are in the nature of allegations made by the applicant regarding his being assaulted, abused filthily and threatened have not been dealt with by the learned Magistrate and therefore, he submits that an appropriate order be passed. 5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the statements on oath recorded by the learned Magistrate of various witnesses in partic...
Vijaykumar Vs. Counto Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. It is seen from the roznama of the Revisional Court that even though summons issued to the respondent had not been returned, the applicant was directed to take steps to serve the respondent. The roznama of 29.06.2015 discloses clearly that notice issued to the respondent had not been returned. Even, as seen from the roznama of the very date of 29.06.2015 as well as of the date of 15.07.2015, the applicant was directed to take steps. Finally, on 05.08.2015, the revision application was dismissed for non prosecution solely on the ground of failure of the applicant to take steps inspite of final opportunity being granted for taking steps to serve the respondent. The question of taking steps to effect service would arise only when summons is returned unserved. For, in that event, the party would come to know the reason for the return of summons and thus would be in a position to take such st...
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...
State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary of Goa, at Secretariat and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. M. Salkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 27/04/2007, whereby the suit filed by the respondents came to be decreed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents claim that they owned a property known as "Inamachi Galli" situated at Maulinguem of Cotigao Village of Canacona Taluka which was acquired by the respondents by Deed dated 7/11/1875 executed before the Notary Public which document is marked Exhibit 25. It is further their contention that as per the recital of the said document the property originally was a grant from the Government on payment of foro which was redeemed. The boundaries mentioned in the said Sale Deed are towards the East, West and South by the slope of the hillock and towards the North by the paddy field of the Government. It is further their case that th...
Narayan Anant Dalvi and Another Vs. Shivdas Bhartu, (deceased) and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition no. 25 of 2008 dated 14.05.2009, by which the claim of the claimants, the Respondents herein, for compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been allowed. The Respondents who are the Appellants herein, came in Appeal. 2. The parties are herein referred to as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the claimant no. 1, husband of deceased Ujwala and the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the sons. It is the case of the claimants that on the date of the accident i.e. on 23.02.2007, the deceased Ujwala was riding on her Activa Scooter bearing no. GA-03/D-6553; when she reached near Ankur Hospital, Mapusa, at that time, Respondent no. 1 was driving the Water tanker bearing no. GA-01/Z-0621 in a ra...
Narayan Anant Dalvi and Another Vs. Shivdas Bhartu, (deceased) and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition no. 25 of 2008 dated 14.05.2009, by which the claim of the claimants, the Respondents herein, for compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been allowed. The Respondents who are the Appellants herein, came in Appeal. 2. The parties are herein referred to as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the claimant no. 1, husband of deceased Ujwala and the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the sons. It is the case of the claimants that on the date of the accident i.e. on 23.02.2007, the deceased Ujwala was riding on her Activa Scooter bearing no. GA-03/D-6553; when she reached near Ankur Hospital, Mapusa, at that time, Respondent no. 1 was driving the Water tanker bearing no. GA-01/Z-0621 in a ra...
Raghupati Ramkrishna Bhandari and Another Vs. Ram Daryanani
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. This writ petition challenges the order dated 9/6/2015 passed in Special Civil Suit no.10/2013/A by the Senior Civil Judge, Ponda, thereby rejecting the application of the defendants, who are the petitioners filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the averments made in the plaint, show that the suit was barred by law of limitation. Learned Civil Judge, after hearing both sides, rejected the application holding that the averments in the plaint apparently disclosed that the cause of action had arisen from failure of the petitioners to perform their part of the obligations contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 28/4/2009 entered between the petitioners on one hand and the respondent on the other hand and so law of limit...
Antonio Braganza and Another Vs. Antoneto John D'Souza @ Johny D'Souza ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge at Mapusa thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs for carrying out amendment to the plaint in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order is arbitrary and perverse as it does not apply the test of due diligence properly to the facts of the present case. He submits that the learned Civil Judge has completely ignored the fact that after the disposal of the suit, there were several other writ petitions between the same parties, one of which also resulted in restoration of the suit with direction of expeditious disposal of the suit to the trial Court which showed that the petitioners were pursuing their case with reasonable care, caution and effort. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is well settled law ...
Mahadev @ Madhav Shablo Solienkar @ Gaude (since deceased through his ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file the suit in representative capacity. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Civil Judge has completely ignored the well settled principle of law while dealing with the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. He submits that while considering the essential requirement of the provisions of law of community of interest, the Court must satisfy itself that community of interest has been sufficiently shown. He further submits that it is not necessary that the lis in the suit must involve public interest. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the case of The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vs. T.N. Gana...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »