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.
Babu J. Upardekar and Others Vs. Returning Officer, Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. P. Bhandari holding for Mr. P. Dangui, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. At the outset, Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to delete the respondent no.13. Leave granted. The respondent no.13 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioners. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Ms. P. Bhandari, learned Addl. Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Remaining respondents absent though notice was issued for final disposal at the stage of admission. 5. The above petition takes exception to an order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 at Exhibit F to the petition and direction to the respondent no.1 to accept the nominations of the petitioners. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by ...
Aditya Dhananjay Phadte and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Ms. A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenors. 2. The above petition, filed by five petitioners on the ground that have successfully passed the MBBS Degree Examinations and are eligible for seeking admissions to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course of the Goa University, at the Goa Medical College, Bambolim. The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a direction that AIPGMEE, 2016 be cancelled and admissions to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses 2016-17 be conducted on the basis of the Goa (Rules for Admission to Post-graduate Course of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 2004 ( Admission Rules 2004 for short) at Exhibit A. In the alternative, to issue an appr...
Sudha Facility Management Service Vs. The Managing Director, Kadamba T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. Samant, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. P. Bhandari, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The petitioner by this petition, inter alia, prays to declare the petitioner as the successful bidder in respect of the tender dated 27/10/2015 for washing and cleaning of buses of Kadamba Transport Corporation ( Corporation for short). A further direction sought by the petitioner is, inter alia, to quash and set aside the new bid process which took place on 25/1/2016 in respect of the cleaning and washing of such buses. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case, are as under: The respondent No.1 issued a Notice inviting tender for cleaning and washing of the Corporation buses for the period from 1/12/20...
M/s. Emerald Cruises Vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 12th March, 2007, on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case the ITAT was justified in entertaining the appeal ITA No.142/PANJ/2005 as the same was fileds beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was unaccompanied by any plea for condonation of delay? (ii) Whether, there is any legal bar to the payment of commission for sale of tickets to the counter staff/ staff at the Cruise Jetty, in addition to the payment of fixed monthly salary, payment of commissions to taxi drivers, agents, etc.? (iii) Whether, the observations/findings made by the ITAT that the appellant has made "unverifiable entries", is totally perverse, particularly in view of the voluminous material produced on record by the appellan...
Shri Ram Gangadharan Vs. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2008, whereby, Civil Suit bearing no. 35 of 2007, filed by the Appellant was partly decreed and the Respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs.24,039/- to the Appellants along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from 19.10.2001 till the date of actual payment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the business of executing construction contracts for the departments of the Appellant no. 1 and its undertakings in the State of Goa and also business of executing the construction contracts of other State Governments in their states and, as such, is a registered Contractor with the Respondent no. 2. According to the Appellants, the Respondent no. 2 for and on behalf of the Respondent no. 3, issued a public tender notic...
Sociedade De Formento Industrial Ltd. Vs. Gurudas G. Pai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2016
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. This Civil Revision Application challenges the legality and correctness of the order passed on 27th April, 2015 in Special Civil Suit No.34/2011/A by Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim. 3. The facts leading to filing of this Revision application may be stated in brief as under: a) The respondent is the original plaintiff who had filed a civil suit against the petitioner, which is the original defendant no.2. The suit claims reliefs of payment of damages of Rs.25.00 lakhs and also injunctions, both permanent and mandatory against all the defendants. Original defendants nos.1, 3 and 4 have not been impleaded as parties to this application, as the relief claimed in this application is only against the respondent. b) It is the case of the respondent that he is a co-owner of an undivided property, surveyed under no.24/2011 of village Pissurelem Village, hereinafter referred to as the suit property. The present petitioner as well as ...
Rui Ferreira Vs. The Police Inspector, Panaji and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. A complaint was filed by the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji contending that he is the share holder of Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and therefore, concerned for welfare and interest of the bank. He submitted that he noticed a fact that one Mr. Sham Naik, was appointed by the bank on contract basis, although he was a former employee of the bank who had been allowed to take voluntary retirement from the bank. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2005, once an application of an employee seeking his voluntary retirement from the bank is allowed, his association with the bank in any manner is not permissible and in no case, such an employee can be recruited or appointed on contract basis. He submits that the fact that Mr. Naik was appointed by the bank amounted to committing of fraud by the bank as the ...
Parameshwaran Subramani and Another Vs. State, Through Central Bureau ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application, the applicants have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No. 1/2013 thereby directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Applicant No. 1, is a Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore and applicant no. 2 is the Inspector of Central Excise, Goa. Applicant no. 1, was facing an enquiry on the allegation that he together with some other persons during the period of the year 1996-97, colluded with some of the firms and purchased 48 ready flats for Customs Department, Goa at an exorbitant cost of Rs.3,55,69,150/-, which amount was much higher than the actual market rate and thereby committed gross misconduct and caused loss of Rs.1,04,00,000/- to the Department. Because of pendency of this enquiry, applicant no. 1 faced some difficul...
Anandeya Zinc Oxides Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India through The Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. M. Singbal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ to quash and set aside the Order dated 29.01.2009, passe by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the Respondent no. 2 herein. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as contended by the Petitioner are that the Petitioners are 100% EOU and are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacturer of zinc oxide which is mainly used in the tyre and paint industry and for that purpose, they have a factory at Plot no. 23, GDDIDC, Phase-III-A, Sancoale Industrial Estate, Zuarinagar, Goa. It is further their case that zinc oxide is covered under serial no. 28.06 of the draw back schedule notified under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The rate of drawback is notified under Notification no. 26/2003-Cus (NT) dated 01.04.2005 under A...
Moreno Rebello and Others Vs. State Through the Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
1. Heard. Admit. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for applicants and learned P.P. 3. This is a Revision Application questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 07/09/2015 passed by Special Judge, South Goa, Margao in Special Case (SC/ST) No.4/2014 thereby directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 504, 506(ii), 509 and 394 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3(1)(ii),(iv) and (x) and 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for the sake of convenience.). 4. I have heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the impugned order, the complaint filed against the applicants and s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »