Mumbai Goa Court April 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.
Savia Melo Furtado e Barros and Others Vs. Heritage Princes Real Estat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
1. Heard 2. Admit. 3. Ms. V. Palyekar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. This is an appeal at the instance of the original defendants assailing the order passed by the learned Adhoc Senior Judge, Mapusa dated 12/05/2015 pursuant to which she allowed the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and secured them with the relief of injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering or trespassing the suit plot or alienating the suit plot or any portion thereof pending the final disposal of the suit. The defendant assailed the order on several grounds taken in the appeal memo which are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition. 5. Be that as it may, Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate for the appellants took me through the various documents including the Memorandum of Understanding( MOU for short) dated 25.08.2010 and the pleadings to canvass a case that there were no pleadings on the readiness and willingness of the respondent...
Aires D'Costa @ Ayres Genesio Jose Estevan Da Costa Vs. The Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Considering the limited controversy involved, as set out hereinafter, it would not be necessary to serve the unserved respondent nos.14, 15, 20, 38, 39 and 40. I find that at the highest, the respondent nos.6 and 7, who are original defendant nos.6 and 7 would be the contesting parties. They are served. However, none appears for them. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit Not.22/2014 in which there are 42 defendants. The present issue pertains to defendant nos.41 now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was said to be proprietor of Al Sharif Beef Centre. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the respondent nos.6 and 7 have erected a Sports cum Commercial Complex by encroaching on the land belonging to the petitioner. It was contended that out of said complex, Shop no.14 was allotted to now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was running Al Sharif Beef Centre , therein. It appears that on the de...
Emgee Housing Private Limited and Others Vs. ELS Developers Private Li ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. By this petition, the petitioners (respondents before the Arbitrator) are challenging order dated 09.08.2012, passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (CLB) in Company Application No. 27/2012 in Company Petition No. 8/397-398/CLB/MB/2012. By the impugned order, the CLB has dismissed the Company Application No. 27/2012, thereby refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That, the respondent herein (petitioner before the CLB) had filed the aforesaid company application alleging mismanagement by the petitioners, as majority shareholders of the petitioner no. 1-Company. That, company petition is filed for seeking action in respect of oppression and mismanagement. It appears that the petitioners filed Company Application No. 27/2012 therein, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act, for short), seeking reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. That applica...
Santosh Kudtarkar Vs. State, Represented by the PP and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
1. This Revision Application at the instance of the original Accused no. 6, takes exception to the Order dated 09.02.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, at Mapusa in Session Case no. 13 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has directed framing of charge against the Accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application may be stated thus: That, Ankita Kudtarkar, is the daughter of the cousin brother of the Petitioner. Ankita and now deceased Pranay Padloskar, were in a relationship since about seven years prior to death of Pranay. There were disputes and differences between the families of Ankita and Pranay on account of the affair/relationship between them which were said to be patched up at Valpoi Police Station where the parties had landed on account of filing of complaint and counter complaints. 3. On 06.03.201...
Suraj Tulshidas Naik Vs. Chandar Barkelo Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2.Heard Shri Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the original Plaintiffs and the only contesting Respondents. The service of notice to Respondents No.6 and 7, who are original defendants No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 3.The Petitioner, who is the original Defendant No.1, filed an application for production of additional documents being Application Exhibit 104-D. Thereby, the Petitioner sought to produce a CD of photographs which were clicked on 03.10.2007 by a professional photographer namely Eknath Uttam Khedekar and a certificate dated 09.03.2015 issued by Rucha Photo Studio. The Trial Court found that the Petitioner had filed a list of documents on 25.02.2009 and as the CD was generated on 30.06.2008, which was prior to the filing of the list of documents, th...
Dr. Ankita Arun Pednekar and Another Vs. State of Goa, through the Chi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
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. Aditi Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and Mr. Nitin Sardesai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents No.9 to 14. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The above petition, inter alia, seeks for a writ to quash and set aside the Merit List dated 7th April, 2016 for the purpose of admissions to M.D.S. Programs for the academic year 2016-17 in the Goa Dental College, and for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents that the admissions to the Post Graduate M.D.S. Programs for the year 2016-17 be made on the basis of the Merit List circulated on 5th April, 2016. Another relief sought by the petitioners is for a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting asid...
Ramkrishna P. Kandolkar and Others Vs. Peter Paul D'Souza (since decea ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996. 3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed for eviction against the original defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased original plaintiff. The respondents had sought vacant possession of House No. 43/9, Survey No.159/9 of village Candolim (hereinafter referred to as the suit house) vide Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. According to the petitioners, this suit was filed by the respondents out of grudge that respondents nurtured against the petitioners on account of the petitioners having lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 of Indian Penal...
Roger Franco and Another Vs. Leonara Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Mapusa in Appeal No. DC/MND/MAP/APL/BAR-11/3/2011. By the impugned judgment, the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to challenge the order of registration dated 14.05.1986, passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez, has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the land bearing survey no. 175/19 of village Calangute, Bardez, Goa is subject matter of the ispute. According to the petitioners, the said land was belonging to their ancestors, Mrs. Rosalina Fernandes, who passed away in the year 1982. Rosalina had a son, Mr. Andrew Fernandes and two daughters, Mrs. Catherine Franco and Mrs. Pedrinha Pereira. Vicent Franco was the husband of Catherine Franco. Vicent Franco and Catherine Franc...
Roger Franco and Another Vs. Leonara Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Mapusa in Appeal No. DC/MND/MAP/APL/BAR-11/3/2011. By the impugned judgment, the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to challenge the order of registration dated 14.05.1986, passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez, has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the land bearing survey no. 175/19 of village Calangute, Bardez, Goa is subject matter of the dispute. According to the petitioners, the said land was belonging to their ancestors, Mrs. Rosalina Fernandes, who passed away in the year 1982. Rosalina had a son, Mr. Andrew Fernandes and two daughters, Mrs. Catherine Franco and Mrs. Pedrinha Pereira. Vicent Franco was the husband of Catherine Franco. Vicent Franco and Catherine Fran...
Sadanand Parshuram Naik Parsekar @ Sadanand Parshuram Naik Desai and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and Mr. S. Mahambrey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 7. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the main grievance raised by the petitioners is that the committee which was duly elected and was holding the office of the concerned Devasthan was according to the petitioners unauthorisedly and arbitrarily dissolved by the impugned order dated 12.02.2016. It is the contention of the petitioners that the term of the office of the concerned committee who are the respondent nos. 4 to 7 was due to expire on 31.03...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »