Mumbai Goa Court March 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.
Dilip Trimbak Alve and Another Vs. The Chief Officer, Margao Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. Heard. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this writ petition, the legality and correctness of the order dated 03/09/2014 passed by the Goa Municipalities Appellate Tribunal in Municipal Appeal No.67/2014 is challenged. Facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant for adjudicating upon the challenge involved in this petition are stated in brief as under : The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of shop bearing No.14/482 situated at New Market, Margao, Goa which is under occupation of the respondent no.3 and in this shop, the respondent no.3 has, without any permission from the petitioners or the respondent no.1 Municipal Council, made some illegal construction/ repairs. According to the petitioners, the works carried out by the respondent no.3 in the shop qualify to be termed as construction of a building as contemplated under Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (the Act, 1968, for short). The petitioners, on notici...
Simao Oliveira and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent no. 1 and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8. 2. Th above Petition, inter alia, prays for direction to remove the encroachment of an illegal house on the public nallah/bundh falling in the property surveyed under no. 69/3 belonging to the Communidade of Sernabatim. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioner are that the present Petition has been filed for the inaction on the part of the Respondents-State Authorities of not having acted upon the representation made by the Petitioners in bringing to the knowledge of the Respondents that the public nallah belonging to the Communidade of Sernabatim falling in the property surveyed under no. 69 of Sernabatim Village has come to be obstructed by the Respondent nos 10 to 12 who have illegally constructed a residential hou...
Ulhas Pandharinath Chodankar and Another Vs. The Senior Civil Judge, C ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 577, this being a Writ Petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 30.01.2016, it is directed that the respondent-Judicial Officer be deleted forthwith. Cause title be amended accordingly forthwith. 3. After deletion of the sole respondent from the array of party-respondent in the cause title of this petition, the question relating to legality and correctness of the impugned order still remains and even in the absence of a specific person added as respondent-party, having regard to the nature of the supervisory powers of the Court, this question can be dealt with in such a situation. Accordingly, the question of legality and correctness is being considered in the li...
Cecil Fernandes and Another Vs. Derrick Barnes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Writ petition, a roznama order dated 18/11/2014 purportedly passed on the application filed under Order 21 Rule 38 of C.P.C. for issuance of warrant of arrest to the judgment debtor(Exhibit D-14) has been challenged. 3. When an application under Order 21 Rule 38, C.P.C. praying for issuance of warrant of arrest of the Judgment Debtor is passed, without issuing a show cause notice, it would be necessary for the Executing Court to record its satisfaction as to why such notice is not necessary. Order 21 Rule 37 clearly lays down that a notice need not be issued to the judgment debtor only when the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that, the judgment debtor, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Such satisfaction must be reflected in a specific order passe...
Shivayya Marihal Vs. Inspector General of Prisons and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Ms. G. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, waives service on behalf of the Respondents. 3. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner for his release on furlough for a period of 28 days. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a life convict and has already completed ten years of his imprisonment and has always maintained good conduct during his confinement in prison. The Petitioner is also physically disabled and suffers from 100% ophthalmic disability (total blindness). The Petitioner had earlier applied for furlough and was released. After completion of the leave period, the Petitioner surrendered himself. 4. By an application dated 26.06.2015 addressed to the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner applied for release on furlough for 28 days to visit his...
Ramesh Shanu Gaonkar Vs. Director Of Sports And Youth Affairs Governme ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. P. Dangui, the learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to issue appointment order as a Physical Education Teacher. 4. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 14.10.2011 the respondent no.2 advertised two posts of Physical Education Teachers, one is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is belonging to scheduled tribe. He applied for the said post in the reserved category. The petitioner was directed to appear for an interview on 21.07.2011 with necessary documents. The petitioner successfully faced an interview and is placed on the Waiting List. 5. On 2...
Datta K. Kudchadkar Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the inquiry report dated 12.4.2010 by the inquiring authority; order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, respondent no.3 as well as the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent no.2. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 3.8.2006, the respondent no. 3 placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. By order dated 30.7.2008 the order of the suspension was revoked with immediate effect. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 494/2009 claiming regular salary during the period of suspension. On 12.8.2009, the respondent no.3 issued memorandum to the petitioner disclosing the proposal to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and the substance of imputation was set out and following charges/Articles were framed:- i. Article I : That Shri Datta K. Kudchadkar, while functioning as Jailor during the period from 22.12.2005 to 1.8.2006 failed to INSPE...
Village Panchayat at Veling Priol-Cuncoliem Vs. Ashok Raghu Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application compositely filed by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 9 of C.P.C. has been rejected on grounds not at all germane to the issue involved. He further submits that it was nobody's case that the attorney of the petitioner did not act in good faith. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the use of word "Attorney" is a mistake on the part of the learned Civil Judge and she should have referred to the word "Administrator" because the paragraph 1 of the application states that the Administrator of the petitioner acted illegally, when the lease of the subject shop was granted to the respondent. 4. Whatever might be the case, the fact remains, and it can be seen from the impugned orders that the reason that it is the own case of the petitioner/defendant that some of its Age...
Fr. Ralin De Souza and Another Vs. Goa Basketball Association, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of the Court to delete respondent no. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 1 has no objection. Leave is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No. 33/2015/D, thereby allowing the amendment application (Exhibit-30) under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by respondent no. 1. 4. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order ignores the fundamental principles of law, which govern the discretion of the Court in the matter of amendment of pleadings. He submits that although there is a power given to the Court to allow the amendment of pleadings, it cannot be exercised when the amendment sought change...
Surendra J. Kalangutkar and Another Vs. The Goa State Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. Both the learned counsel point out that the legal proposition involved in both the above petitions are identical and as such they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 5. The above petitions inter-alia pray for quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings starting with the suspension of the petitioners, the subsequent service of the charge sheet against the petitioners, the proceedings of the inquiry officer, the inquiry report, the show cause notice issued to the petitioners and the office order dated 02.05.2015 dismissing the petitioners from the services. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by orders dated 07.07.2010 and 21.08.2010, it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »