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.
M/s. Aum International Inc., Through its Regional Director for South A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality by not considering the objections taken by the petitioners with regard to admissibility of documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. All these objections related to non-compliance with the mandatory conditions of subsection (2) as well as subsection (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that now it is well settled law as can be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. .Basheer, (2014)10 SCC 473 that Section 65-B conditions being mandatory in nature, must be fulfilled by the party seeking to place reliance upon the documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has completely ignored the law s...
Rohan Satish Timblo Vs. Village Panchayat of Siriado-Palem and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. By this petition, the legality and correctness of the order dated 13/8/2014 passed by the District Judge-I, Mapusa, in Civil Revision Application No.14/2013 is challenged. 4. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 20/8/2010 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat -II, Panaji-Goa, whereby the learned Additional Director of Panchayats ordered the Village Panchayat, that is, respondent no.1 to forward the application dated 10/2/2009 submitted by the petitioner for appropriate consideration and submission of report. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has strongly opposed this petition contending that the impugned order has been passed by considering the illegal extension made by the petitioner while constructing his bungalow an...
Ashok Govind Naik and Others Vs. Village Panchayat at Marcaim, through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. These writ petitions challenge three orders dated 12/02/2015 separately passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos.82, 80 and 81 of 2014 by the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the Revision Applications under Section 201-B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act. 4. The Revisions were sought to be filed by the petitioner as the petitioner in all these three Writ Petitions felt aggrieved by allowing of the Appeals of the respondent no.2, by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II, Panaji, Goa, by orders dated 23/01/2014. By these orders, the Additional Director has issued a direction to the petitioner in all these petitions, to demolish the illegal structures constructed by him ...
Rohidas A. Naik Vs. Central Information Commission and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner seeking certified copies of the Trust Deed dated 29/01/1993 has been wrongly and illegally rejected by the Public Information Officer i.e. the respondent no.3 and the order of the rejection has been upheld by the Appellate Authorities i.e. the respondent nos.1 and 2, without considering the settled principles of law. 4. It is seen from the first impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 (page 15 of the paper book) that the information has been rejected on the ground that the information is held by the LIC in a fiduciary capacity and also on the ground that the information relates to personal information, having no connection whatsoever with any public activity or interest. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that LIC indeed holds the information in a f...
M/s. Cyrus Marine Services Vs. K.A. Shivaraman
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This revision application challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vasco on 02.11.2015 in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2014/A, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint. A suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, claiming that under the contract given by the petitioner to the respondent for carrying out repairs to vessels, different bills were raised upon the petitioner claiming various amounts from the petitioner. These bills have been given in details in paragraph 4 of the plaint. According to the respondent, the total amount of these bills is Rs.22,08,196/- against which, the respondent admits that he has received the payment of Rs.9,94,619/- from the petitioner. The respondent claims that as the remaining amount is still outstanding, the respondent has fi...
Mohan Khemlo Bandekar Vs. The Additional Collector-II and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent. 3. This Writ Petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 16/10/2014, passed by the Additional Collector-II, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 (Mamlatdar's Court Act, for short), directing the petitioner to remove obstructions from the right of way claimed by the respondent no.2, preferred a Revision Application in terms of Section 22 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act. The Revision Application, in terms of subsection (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 22, ordinarily, has to be preferred before the Collector, who has been invested with revisional powers. However, under subsection (3), a power has been conferred upon the Government to authorise, by notification in off...
M/s. BGC International Pvt. Ltd., represented herein through K. Mohan ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. This petition challenges the order dated 7/7/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge "A' Court, Ponda in Special Civil Suit no.22/2007/A thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit for grant of permission to produce the additional documents on record. 4. The suit that has been filed by the respondents against the petitioners, claims refund of advance of Rs.30.00 lakhs together with interest and other sums of money from the petitioners. The petitioners have resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The petitioner no.1 is a company and on its behalf one Shri K. Mohan, son of Kala Bhairava entered the witness box as the first witness of the petitioners. During the cross examination of this witness, it transpired that he had not produced on record ...
Teodorico Ludovico Camilo Fernandes and Another Vs. Walter Antonio Ota ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4/9/2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, Court of the District Judge-1, Panaji, which is a common order rendered in Misc. Civil Appeal No.92/2014 and Misc. Civil Appeal No.93/2014. 5. By this common order, the first Appellate Court dismissed Misc. Civil Appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.92/2014 and allowed another appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.93/2014. These appeals were filed against the common order dated 31/7/2014, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.56/2014/C by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji Goa, thereby rejecting the application of the respondents no.1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction and also their application for appointment of Court receiver. 6. The respondents no.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for partition against the petitioners, the original defendants no.1 and 2 and several other...
Pandurang R. Shet, Technical Officer (TCP) – Group 'B' V ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia prays for a writ of mandamus or direction to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 07.09.2007 and 23.09.2009 and also a direction to the respondent no.1 to grant regularisation with effect from the initial date of appointment and for other consequential benefits. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner successfully completed three years of diploma course in Handloom Technology on 30.07.1979 and was appointed as a Master Craftsmen by the respondent no.2 on 12.09.1979. The sanction was granted by the respondent no.1 for creating the post of Master Craftsman, Technical Assistant ( Design ) for the development of the Handloom industry on 21.10.1980. The petitioner and the others had filed a Writ Petition No. 79/1990 before this Court in...
Cedric Bosco Savio Lobo Vs. State of Goa represented by its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Kalangutkar, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 164/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, "C" Court Mapusa. According to the petitioner, who appears in person, the order impugned reflects complete non-application of mind to the facts of the case by the learned Magistrate and is founded upon unsustainable grounds. The petitioner further submits that only two reasons have been stated by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the complaint filed by him for initiating action in accordance with section 340 of Cr.P.C for filing of complaint against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 193, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »