Mumbai Goa Court February 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.
Manicabai N. Tendulkar Vs. The Chief Officer, Mapusa Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
1. Heard Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Mr. S. D. Padiyar learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 5. This appeal challenges the order dated 9.10.2015 passed under Order 39 of the CPC by the District Judge-II at Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No. 127/2014. 6. Brief facts of the may be stated as follows:- In the year 1904, an open land admeasuring 21.96 square metres was allotted to the father of the Shri Namdev F. Tendulkar, namely Shri Fondu Rahgunath Tendulkar by the then local body i.e. Camara Municipal de Bardez under Portuguese Decree No. 43525. Shri Fondu R. Tendulkar was running a hair cutting saloon during his lifetime and regularly paying ground rent to the municipalities. After the death of Fondu Tendulkar in the year 1953, suit shop was run by his el...
Zoivonta E Parab, Major of Age Vs. The Secretary(Law), Law Department, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the respondents to release retirement dues to the petitioner including pension and gratuity along with 8% interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was practising advocate since 1979. The petitioner practised as an advocate till he was appointed as the President of Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was appointed as the President of Goa Administrative Tribunal by order dated 24.10.2001 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 08.11.2011. 3. The appointment order of the petitioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 315/2001 on the ground that State did not consult the High Court before appointing the petitioner as the President. This Court by its Judgment dated 19.9.2002 set aside the appointment order dated 24.10.2001. 4. The petitioner states that thereafter the Government referred the proposal of appointment of the petitioner to the Hon'ble Chief Justi...
Gopinath Naik Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a joint application filed by the petitioner, who was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C., and the victims of crime, for compounding of the offences, was not completely granted and that the Appellate Court allowed the compounding of the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and refused to grant permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. on the ground that this offence is non-compoundable under the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on legal grounds, the order cannot be said to be absolutely erroneous as under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. is not compoundable. But, now the law is clear and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; 2012...
Joel Avelino Noronha and Another Vs. Francisco Xavier Estanislaus Mira ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 15/07/2015 passed by Principal District Judge, South Goa, whereby, by invoking power under Section 32(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short), the proceedings of Rent Appeal No.35/2013 have been directed to be stopped with a further direction to the petitioners to put the respondents in possession of the suit premises. 3. Petitioner no.2, according to the respondents, is their tenant and petitioner no.1 has been inducted as subtenant by petitioner no.2 without any permission from the respondents. The respondents, therefore, launched eviction proceedings against both the petitioners and during the pendency of these proceedings, an application under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act came to be filed by the respondents contending that the petiti...
Chandrakant Desai Vs. State of Goa, through Maria R.E.D'souza and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. Learned counsel for the revision applicant has assailed the impugned judgment and order on two grounds (a) the investigation could not have been carried out without sanction of the concerned magistrate as the offence punishable under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act is non cognizable and (b) secondly, no reliance could have been placed upon the breathe test report, the same being not admissible in evidence. 3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application submitting that both these challenges have been extensively dealt with by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order and neither any illegality and/or incorrectness and/or impropriety could be found in impugned order and therefore, this is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned judgment and order. 4. On going through the impugned judgment and order, I find substance in the argument of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the St...
Rohidas Harischandra N. Shirodkar (since deceased) Thru LRs. Vs. Devra ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.23/2006 whereby the suit filed by the respondent no.1 and the counter claim filed by the appellants came to be disposed of by decreeing the suit partly and the appellant no.1 was permanently restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the suit shop M/s Sagun Shet Jewellers situated in the building known as "Kamakshi Niwas" at Budhwar Peth, Upper Bazar, Ponda Goa. The appellant no.1 is also restrained from evicting the respondent no.1 from the said shop otherwise than by due process of law. The counter claim of the appellant no.1 came to be rejected. 3. Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Judge has misconstrued the agreement...
Tomas Shamson De Souza Vs. Nelly D'Souza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 04/03/2015 passed by District Judge-3, South Goa at Margao, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.80/2013. 4. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are stated in brief as under : a) The respondent no.1 is a daughter-in-law of Joaquim Santana D'Souza, who died on 31/10/2008 at Patnem, Collem, Canacona, Goa. As he left behind an estate, the respondent no.1 as well as other legal heirs including husband of respondent no.1, the petitioner herein, were desirous of having the estate left behind by the deceased partitioned amongst the heirs. Respondent no.1, therefore, filed an application before Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona for initiation of Inventory Proceedings which came to be registered as Inventory Proceedings No.18/2010. In these proceedings, widow of the d...
State of Goa Vs. Siluvai Gnanenthira Roche and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 has been stated to be discharged by the Trial Court in the year 2007. Heard finally. 2. The grievance in this application is that impugned order dated 2/6/2010 acquitting respondents nos.1 and 2, who are the accused nos.1 and 2 from the charge framed for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act", for short) under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed at a stage not permissible under the law. 3. Facts necessary to decide this application are:- Respondent No.1 was the Senior Vice President, Respondent No.2 was the Branch Manager and Respondent No.3 was a Proprietor of M/s. Regency Builders, the borrower of GIC Housing Finance Ltd., (hereinafter called "GICHFL" for short) at the relevant time....
Andrew Rego Vs. Juliet Lopes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This Writ Petition challenges the common judgment and order dated 29.04.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 92/2012 and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 62/2013, preferred by the petitioner and the respondent respectively, against the order dated 29.08.2012 passed in Matrimonial Petition No. 63/2011/A by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. While Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 62/2013 has been dismissed, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 92/2012 has been partly allowed by the learned District Judge. The effect is that the challenge of the petitioner-husband to the order directing him to grant interim monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife has been rejected and plea of respondent-wife to enhance the interim monthly maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to some reasonable amount has been partly allowed. Consequently, by the order impugned herein, the petitioner-husband has been directed to pa...
Janardhan Vassudev Venzi Naik Vs. Digambar Krishna Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
1. Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 5. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/original defendant no. 6 against the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, FTC, South Goa, Margao, on the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the Civil Suit No.52/2013, by which the application of the respondent no.1/plaintiff for temporary injunction has been allowed. Therefore, the present appeal. 6. Parties are referred to as per the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »