Mumbai Goa Court June 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.
Vivekanand Karekar Vs. Smt. Sneha Karekar @ Shilpa Karekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the petitions. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of parties. 2. Both these petitions are between the same parties and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner has filed Matrimonial Petition No.51/2013 against the respondent, for annulment of marriage under Articles 18, 19 and 20 read with Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Law of Marriage, which petition is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Bicholim. 4. The case made out in the petition is that the respondent is a transgender and as such, is not able to discharge the matrimonial obligations. 5. The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit-24), for a direction to the respondent to subject herself for medical examination. It was contended that looking to the controversy involved, it is necessary that the respondent is medically examined. That application, was opposed by the respondent. 6. The learned trial Court by the impug...
Prakash Gurudas Timblo and Others Vs. Hemlatabai Ravikant Darne alias ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition at the instance of the original defendant nos.1 to 6 is to the order dated 19/07/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, whereby, application dated 29/08/2013 in Special Civil Suit No.102/2001/A filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs, for production of the document (D-20) has been allowed and the same is directed to be "treated as a secondary evidence". The respondent nos.3 to 5 are original defendant nos.7 to 9 before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the final judgment/order dated 15/03/2000 passed in inventory proceedings no.72/1998 approving the partition, be declared as null and void and f...
Joao and Others Vs. Jose Antonio Rodrigues and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On 28/01/2016, a notice for final disposal was issued in this petition. The record shows that the respondents were also represented by their Counsel on 04/05/2016. However, today, none appears for the respondents. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the petition is being disposed of finally. 2.The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who are challenging the order dated 28/12/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.93/2010/D, whereby their application (Exh.31), for permission to lead secondary evidence, by production of negatives of some photographs, produced on record, has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Suresh Pandharipande vs. Parag Pandharipande; 2016(2) ALL M R 563, in order to submit that the existence of original document and its loss, are the two factors necessary, to permit the petitioners to lead evidence. He,...
Dayanand L. Naik and Another Vs. Vasco Urban Co-operative Credit Socie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Goa in Miscellaneous Application No. 7/2015. By the impugned order, the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 108 days in filing an appeal challenging the judgment and the award dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Registrar's Nominee of the Co-operative Societies, South Goa in Misfeasance Case No. 1-204-2012/TS/RCS/VUCCSI/509. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner no. 1 is working as Clerk with the respondent-Cooperative Credit Society, while the petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of petitioner no. 1 is working as a agent for collecting pigmy deposits for the said Co-operative Credit Society. The aforesaid misfeasance proceedings were started against the petitioners on the file of the Re...
Tome Carvalho Vs. Communidade of Cortalim and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
1. By this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short), the petitioner is seeking modification/ recalling of the part of the order dated 07/08/2015 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.33/2015. 2. By the said order, the respondent no.1, Communidade of Cortalim was allowed to withdraw the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application and while doing so, this Court had noted the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 in the capacity as a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code, would have a right to file an appeal against acquittal, before the learned Sessions Judge by virtue of proviso to Section 372 of the Code and that the respondent no.1 intends to take recourse to the said remedy. 3. This Court in para 4 of the order, after noticing the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code, had observed that the respondent no.1 Communidade would come within the ambit of definition of 'victim'. 4. The brief ...
Shrison Realtors Vs. Costa and Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents in Appeal from Order no.1/2016 and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent in Appeal from Order no.9/2016. These are appeals at the instance of the original plaintiffs and the defendants coming up for disposal by a common judgment. The parties would be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants for brevity's sake hereinafter in view of the two appeals filed by each of them assailing the same order passed by the trial Court securing the plaintiffs with the partial order of injunction while imposing certain conditions on them and the appeal of the defendants challenging the order securing the plaintiffs with the order of injunction. 4. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the plaintiffs who submitted that appeal was limited to the conditions attached to the injunction o...
Imtiyaz Hussain Vs. The Central Government Secretary, Government of In ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1976 ( COFEPOSA Act for short hereinafter). 2. The detention order dated 31.3.2015 was issued by the respondent no.2 against him under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the smuggling of gold and allied object. The detention order was served on him on 3.8.2015 and he was taken in detention. He was served with a copy of the detention order with the grounds of detention and the list of documents were purported to have been placed before the Detaining Authority and purported to have been referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority. The impugned order of detention was also served on him on 28.7.2015. 3. In the brief facts, on 7.7.2014, the officer of the Customs seized 19.491 kgs of gold from the possession of three international ...
------ Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Environm ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. A Suo Motu cognizance was taken by this Court based on the news item in the local news paper by an order dated 31.07.2006 and accordingly notices were issued to the concerned Government Authorities. Thereafter, by order dated 08.08.2006 the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court brought to the notice of this Court the various orders and the guidelines issued in different other petitions in connection with the structures which mushroomed within the NDZ area and subject to the CRZ Regulations, 1991. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 08.08.2006 passed the following directions. 6. Having heard Mrs. Alvares, it has become necessary to issue following directions to the State Government. (a) The Chief Secretary State of...
Diago Pereira Vs. State of Goa, Through Police Inspector and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.133/2015 dated 16/12/2015 of P.S. Verna, by which offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (for short, Act of 2003) and Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act have been registered against the applicants. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner Aleixo happens to be the Bhatkar of the complainant Custodio Pereira, the third respondent herein. The fourth respondent is the son of the third respondent. The fourth respondent is a teacher and is conducting tuition classes at his house. As per the complaint lodged by the third respondent, on 16/12/2015 he was sick. At around 9.45 p.m., the complainant was sitting outside his house when the petitioner Aleixo was seen coming towards his house....
Joao C. Pereira and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are original accused nos.2 and 3, before the learned Magistrate are seeking quashing of the said charge sheet/proceedings. 3. On 20/05/2014, respondent no.4 lodged a complaint. According to the complainant the incident had occurred on 19/05/2014 at around 20.30 hrs. It was reported that the complainant was knowing Mr. Sairaj Naik @ Sona (accused no.1) resident of Majorda, Salcete Goa. The said Sona was supposed to give a carpet to the complainant on 19/05/2014. At around 20.30 hrs., the complainant met Mr. Sona and asked him about the carpet, however, Sona refused to give the same. Subsequently, the complainant and Sona went on the motorcycle of the complainant bearing no.GA-02-0596 to Pacheco Wine Shop at Pacheco Wado, Majorda to see the owner of the said shop as he was present at the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »