Mumbai Goa Court May 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.
Trajano D'Mello, Social Activist and Another Vs. State of Goa, through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and by consent, both the petitions were taken up together for final disposal. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, in violation of the various provisions of the Code of Comunidades, namely Articles 342, 326, 329, 334, 334-A have usurped the land belonging to the Comunidade of Serula without following the due process of law, nor the mandatory provisions as contemplated in the said Code. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the usurpation of the land by the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 in survey nos. 376/6, 379, 379/1, 380/1, and 389/1 of the Comunidade, which according to the petit...
Agnelo John Bosco Savio Fernandes Vs. Maria Beatriz de Souza
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a non-custodial parent of the minor, is seeking enlargement of the time, for which the visitation rights are granted to the petitioner. 3. By the impugned order dated 19/04/2016, passed by the learned Ad hoc Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in C.M.A.No.80/2009/A, the application Exh.97/D, filed by the petitioner, was rejected, however, with certain conditions, which are as under: The visitation right shall be exercised as per Order passed in 24/6/2014 in Writ Petition 383/2012. The applicant shall be entitled to visit the child on every Wednesdays, Fridays and Sunday for two hours between 5.30 to 7.30 p.m. till the time he is in Goa. The visitation rights shall be exercised in Hotel Vivanta at Panaji in the presence of the mother. The cost of visitation shall be borne by the respondent. The...
Sudam Gopal Pednekar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2016
1. The original owner of the acquired land is in appeal questioning the validity of the judgment passed by the Reference Court dated 17.07.2012 consequent upon the remand of the file to the Reference Court by this Court setting aside the earlier judgment dated 13.12.2002 in First Appeal No.107/2003 and First Appeal No.136/2003 at the instance of the owner and the Acquiring Department respectively. The Acquiring Department had pursuant to the Section 4 of the Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("The Act" for short hereinafter) had acquired the land for the purpose of a construction of the bypass road which was published in the Official Gazette at Sr. No.34 dated 25.09.1989. An area of 1110 sq. mts. was acquired from the property bearing no.239 of the village Ponda for the said purpose and the Land Acquisition Officer, ("LAO" for short hereinafter) fixed the compensation @ Rs.250/- per square mt. The appellant claimed the enhanced compensation at Rs.4000/- per sq. m...
Augustinho C. Braganza and Another Vs. Sebastiao C. Braganza and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition the Petitioners who are original plaintiffs are challenging the Order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2006/D. By the impugned order application Exhibit-78 filed by the Respondent/Defendant has been allowed and the suit of the Petitioner is dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the Petitioners have instituted the aforesaid suit against the Respondents for partition and other reliefs in which the Petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW-1. It appears that the Respondents had moved an amendment in respect of certain document which was permitted to be produced on record. Thereafter, Respondent applied to the learned Trial Court to recall PW-1 for cross-examination which was allowed. Indisputably, the said Order has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 492...
Domnic Almeida and Another Vs. State of Goa through its Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
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 are challenging the order dated 01/03/2016 passed by the second respondent- Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), by which the second respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short) read with rule 4 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 (the Rules, for short) has directed demolition of 'Sea Valley Restaurant', which is a ground plus one structure along with shops, retaining wall on nullah, situated in property bearing Survey No.212/11 of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. The said structure was originally constructed by Peter Almeida, the father-in-law of the second petitioner somewhere in the year 1977. He started a Bar and Restaurant therein somewhere in the year 1986 after ...
M/s. Nivaran Solutions and Others Vs. M/s. Aura Thia Spa Services Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, Arbitration Act ) arises from an order dated 29.10.2014 passed on Section 9 Arbitration Act application by the Principal District Judge, Panji, Goa refusing to exercise his authority under Section 9 on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 2. The appellant No.1 is a partnership firm and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are its partners. The respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the business of offering various Spa and Saloon services. The respondent No.2 is the director of the respondent no. 1-company. The appellant No.1 being interested in marketing Spa and Saloon services in the State of Goa, executed two agreements with the respondent No.1, both dated 31st October, 2012. By these agreements, the respondent No.1 was appointed as Master Franchisee and was given exclusive right in the entire State of Goa to market the p...
Sandeep K. Pujari Vs. State Through the Chief Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
Nutan d. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner has sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying to quash and set aside the order dated 18/11/2015 passed by the respondent no.1 through the Chief Secretary and the impugned externment order dated 21/1/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 District Magistrate whereby he was sought to be externed for the maximum period i.e. for a period of two years under the provisions of the Sections 3 and 4 (a) of the Goa Maintenance of Public Order and Safety Act, 1988 ( the Act for short hereinafter) and since he was continuing to cause alarm, danger and harm to the person and the property in association with the gang of persons and...
Paresh Pandurang Naik and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these petitions arise from the Judgment and order dated 10/2/2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji, in STAT Appeal No.2/2014, as such, the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their respective capacity in W.P. No.398/2016. 3. By a public notice dated 11/6/2013, the second respondent, Regional Transport Authority (RTA) had invited applications from persons desirous of getting a regular contract carriage permit (permit, for short) to operate one yellow black taxi (A.C) from Margao (Konkan Railway station stand). In pursuance of the advertisement, in all four persons including the petitioner and the respondent no.2, Paresh Naik (Petitioner in W.P. No.299/2016) applied for grant of the permit. The applications were initially considered in the meeting of ...
State of Goa and Another Vs. Laxmikant D. Naik Karmali and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2016
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, the State takes exception to the Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, in Execution Application No.93 of 2013. By the impugned Order, the Executing Court has held that the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors would be liable to pay the amount as computed by the Respondents/Decree Holders. The amount recoverable is to the tune of Rs.1,38,227/- as on 31.08.2014. 3. The precise question is whether the liability of the State to pay interest would cease, when the decretal amount is deposited in pursuance of or as a condition of grant of stay. The question is no longer res integra as it is covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors. vs. O. R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1968 SC 1047 and in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and anr. v...
Nasreen Shaikh Anwar and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through the P.I.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2016
1. Both these Revision applications arise out of the order dated 23/7/2005 passed by the learned Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.42/2013. They involve common and connected questions of law and facts, as such, these criminal revisions applications are been disposed of finally by common judgment. 2. The brief facts are that the original complainant, Mrs. Aysha Rayhan is the daughter of the petitioner Mrs. Nasreen Shaikh (Accused no.1) and the sister of Mr. Tabrez Anwar (Accused no.2). There appears to be a dispute between the complainant on one hand and the petitioners/accused on the other, regarding the residential house. The incident in question has occurred on 29/1/2013, at about 11.30 a.m. at the house of the complainant. As per the complaint lodged, it was claimed by the complainant that his brother Tabrez Anwar had sent three labourers to her house. It was claimed that the accused no.1 hit 9 years old son of the complainant, by name Arman Rehan with a slap on his ear an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›