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.
Carlos Tavora Vs. M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. The dispute centers around even in this appeal relating to the exhaust chimney installed in the terrace of the premises in question. 3. A brief narration of the facts would be necessary to better appreciate the matter in controversy between the parties and to arrive at a conclusive finding on the issue at large arising for determination in this appeal at the instance of the original defendant. The learned trial Court had disallowed the application of the appellant seeking the relief of variation of the injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which he had sought the protection of the learned trial Court to permit him to replace the blower and the chimney carving a case that although there was an earlier order passed in...
Egidio Braganza and Another Vs. Lino Agnelo Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 waive service. There is no appearance on behalf of the rest of the respondents, though served. 2. The record shows that on 24/2/2016, a notice indicating that the matter is likely to be heard finally at the admission stage was issued. As such, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit no.60/2012/D against the respondents which is pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji. That suit is inter alia for declaration of a sale deed dated 10/8/1998 and a Gift Deed dated 29/1/2010 as null and void. The petitioner is also praying for a relief of compensation for unauthorized user of the suit structure, permanent injunction and for possession. 4. Indisputably, the Petitioner no. 1 has entered into the witness box and his examination in chief is recorded in full and the suit was adjourned for cross examination. At this stage, the ...
Gajanan Govind Dhumatker Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents waives service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned Order dated 22/08/2014, which is at Annexure A, was passed by the respondent No.1 without following the principles of natural justice, particularly Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. 4. Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that without issuing a show cause notice nor giving a personal hearing to the petitioner in terms of the Rules, the Respondent No.1 arbitrarily passed the impugned order. The learned Counsel further points out that no inquiry was conducted by the respondent N...
Kashinath Naik Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent No.2. The State-Respondent No.1 is a formal party. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of grant of interim maintenance to respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The respondent No.2 filed an application being Maintenance Application No.2/2013/A under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, in which she also claimed interim maintenance. By an order dated 17.01.2014, the learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioner unsuccessfully tried to get the order cancelled by filing an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected on 25.06.2014. The petitioner challenged the original order of grant of interim maintenance before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.2...
Conrad D Sa and Others Vs. M/s. FandC Construction and Estate Develope ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. P. Chopdekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Abhay Neogi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice. 5. Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, took me through the record and, more particularly, the Development Agreement entered into between the appellants and the respondent no.1 for development of their properties, apart from the irrevocable power of attorney and more particularly the impugned order under challenge in this appeal to press for the grant of stay, pending the hearing of appeal on merits. 6. It was his contention that the learned Trial Court had given a convenient go-by to the cardinal principles governing the grant of temporary injunction and had ...
Mary Pereira and Others Vs. Anant Mahadev Vengurlekar @ Babi Vengurlek ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners/original plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 26.02.2016 below Exhibit 95-D passed by the Adhoc Senior Civil Judge at Vasco in Regular Civil Suit No.12/2010/A. By the impugned order, the application (Exhibit 95-D) for placing reliance on the documents as set out in paragraph 1, serial Nos.(a) to (d) of the application has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioners had earlier sought eviction of the respondents by filing proceedings under the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Control Act, for short), in which the respondents had raised an objection that the subject building of which the suit premises form part, were not more than 15 years old and as such, the proceedings before the Rent Controller, were not competent. Su...
Luis Caetano Guilherme e Melo @ Wellington D'Melo Vs. The State of Goa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rebello, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner who was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator is taking exception to the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Arbitration Petition No. 21/2012 (old Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 187/2009). By the impugned order, the application for amendment for addition of grounds of challenge, in the application filed by the respondent-State, has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion admeasuring 155 square metres of a building owned by the petitioner. The parties had executed a lease deed on 01.07.1998, which shows that the said property was leased out initially for a period upto 31.03.2001, on an agreed rent of Rs.5,050/- per month. The said lease deed contains an arbitration cla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›