Mumbai Goa Court October 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.
Cavelossim Villagers Forum Vs. The State of Goa, Through its Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Palekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2 and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The above Public Interest Litigation filed by the Petitioners, inter alia, prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 2 to 5 to act and take necessary action against the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 with regard to the illegal development of the construction activity in the property surveyed under no. 90/1, 90/5, 90/6, 91/1, 91/3 to 91/10 of Village Cavelossim and also for a direction to the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 to stop all such activity in the property surveyed under no. 90/1, 90/5, 90/6, 91/1, 91/3 to 91/10 of Village Cavelossim. 4. Briefly, it is ...
Rajendra Bakhle Vs. Kishore Nadkarni
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the learned District Judge at Margao in Arbitration Application No. 1/2007. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has dismissed the application, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short), filed by the appellant thereby confirming the award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that there was an agreement between the parties dated 08.02.2003/18.02.2003, under which the respondent had undertaken the repair works of a barge owned by the appellant on no cure, no pay basis , which is the usual practice in marine salvage operations. As per the material terms of the agreement, the contract was to be executed in two phases. The relevant clauses regarding the time period are clause nos. 7 and 10, which read thus: 7. Time period [cl.1(a)]: The first phase of work will be in seven days after starting the work on receiving t...
Antonio Xavier Gomes Pereira and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2016
Nutan D.Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri S.G.Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended on inviting attention to the FIR that Section 341 IPC alone was a cognizable offence unlike the other offences being non-cognizable in nature. The complaint did not at all disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and therefore it was a fit case to quash and set aside the FIR No.62/2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. He placed reliance in Shripad Kulkarni and others Vs. State of Goa and another [Criminal Writ Petition No.80/2013] and Joao C.Pereira and another Vs. State of Goa and others [CDJ 2016 BHC 607] to substantiate his case. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 contended that the investigation revealed that the CC TV footage to which a reference was made in the complaint did not give any details except the arrival of the car in question. The inmates of the house too were not forthcomi...
Manojkumar Ramakant Naik and Another Vs. Paresh Ramakant Naik Gaonkar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2016
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives service. None appears for respondent no. 3, though served. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned District Judge at Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ponda on 31.12.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No. 26/2014/A. The petitioners are also challenging an order dated 27.04.2015, by which application (Exhibit-9) filed by the respondents for production of documents has been allowed by the learned District Judge. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners (original defendant nos. 1 and 2) and the respondent no. 3-Laxmi Gaonkar (original defendant no. 3) for decl...
Mario Francisco Lobo Vs. The State of Goa through Chief Secretary, wit ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. Shri Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that certain persons were named in the complaint lodged by the complainant with the respondent no.3 who had allegedly committed the offences with the others after forming a mob of 30 to 40 persons in the property of the complainant. However in the chargesheet filed by the respondent no.3 certain named persons were not arrayed as the accused and there was also no reason or justification for their non-impleadment. The statement of the nephew too was not recorded who was present at the site at the time of the offence and could have shed light on the incident and the persons involved therein. There were statements on...
Martha Gracias Vs. Shaikh Basir and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28/1/2016 in Municipal Appeal No.23/2012 and the order dated 3/7/2014 passed in Misc. Application No.83/2012/Intervener, in the said appeal. By the impugned order dated 3/7/2014, the Tribunal has refused to allow the petitioner to intervene in the appeal. By the judgment dated 28/1/2016, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the final notice of demolition issued to the respondent no.1 on 23/4/2012, has directed for carrying out inspection of the premises, in the presence of the respondent no.1 (the appellant before the tribunal) and thereafter to issue a show cause notice, along with the document of transgression and description and pass a reasoned order, after giving a 'reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.1'. 2. The brief facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, action was taken against the respondent no.1 which culminated into the final not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›