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.
G. Chelad Joseph and Another Vs. Goa University, University constitute ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. A.A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Shri. P. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and the learned Additional Govt. Advocates for the respondents No.4 and 5. Both the above petitions were taken up together by consent of the learned Counsel as it was pointed out that issues involved are similar. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. We have extensively heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and though there were rival contentions raised by Shri S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 University with regard to the legality or otherwise of the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 15/1/2016 cancel...
Ulhas Kauthankar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. We have heard Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant who took us through the judgment under challenge and submitted that it was a clear case where the impugned judgment warranted an interference and the conviction passed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC was required to be interfered with. It was his contention that at the highest and without prejudice, the conviction had to be altered to that under Section 304(ii) IPC as no intention to commit the offence of murder was proved against him. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that there was no reason to interference with the judgment under challenge and the conviction had to be upheld. Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance in the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Subhash Samal Vs. State of Goa (Criminal Appeal No.5/2011) and Suresh Behra Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.3/2010). 2. The question which arises for c...
Dhananjay Mahadev Dessai Vs. Canacona Urban Co-operative Credit Societ ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Act for short) is challenging the order dated 27/1/2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona in Cr. Case No.10/NI/2014, by which the learned Magistrate has rejected an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PW.1 and PW.2. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although earlier PW.1, Shri Vassant Devidas, who was the Branch Manager of the respondent/complainant and PW.2, Mr. Amar Gaonkar, who is the Chairman of the respondent were cross examined by the earlier counsel appearing for the petitioner, there are some aspects left out which are necessary for substantiating the defence put forth by the petitioner. It is submitted that under section 311 of Cr.P.C. the Court can direct examination and/or recall of any witness if the examination/re-examination...
M/s. Trimurti Exports, through its Authorised representative and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. By this Petition, the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors are challenging the Orders dated 17.02.2016, 25.02.2016 and 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Execution Application no. 100 of 2015. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Petition may be stated thus: That the parties herein had entered into an Agreement dated 17.07.2009, a supplementary Agreement dated 01.09.2009 and lastly an additional Agreement dated 29.05.2010 pertaining to a transaction of purchase of iron ore and its consequent sale to the overseas buyers. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to sole Arbitrator who by an Award dated 18.04.2013 and addendum to the Award dated 19.05.2013 has held the Respondents to be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.14.76 Crores along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2010 until realisation. The said Judgment and Award was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioners...
Baboo @ Surendra Gadekar Vs. Jivottam Krishna Naik, (since deceased) b ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant, is challenging the order dated 12/10/2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Collector and Rent Controller, Mapusa in Rent/MAP/7/1992, which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 20/12/2013 in Rent Appeal No.33/2013. As a result, the petitioner has been directed to be evicted, as being consistently in arrears of rent under Section 32(4) of the Goa Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short). 3. The brief facts are that, premises known as 'Adarsh Niwas', situated at Feira-Baixa, Mapusa, wherein the petitioner is conducting a bar and restaurant, are subject matter of dispute. The disputed premises were let out by now deceased Jivottam Naik to late father of the petitioner Shripad Atmaram Gadekar. After the death of S...
Sitakant Kashinath Parab Vs. The Goa Housing Board, Through its Managi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel, waive service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Although the dispute, out of which, this petition arises, is still at an interim stage, the same has acquired a checkered history. 3. The respondent no. 1-the Goa Housing Board had carried out an auction of a residential plot at Porvorim, Penha de Franca, Bardez, Goa, which auction was held on 30.08.2010. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff was the highest bidder in respect of plot no. 19 admeasuring 335 square metres and had bidded for an amount of Rs.44,98,200/-. Accordingly, as per the order of allotment dated 26.11.2010, the said plot (hereinafter referred to as the suit plot) was allotted in favour of the petitioner, subject to payment of remaining amount of the price, within 25 days. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the date of auction when he went to inspect the site, ...
Mithun M. Naik Vs. Village Panchayat of Kundaim and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the first and second respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 17/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda in Civil Revision Application No.18/2014, by which the judgment and order dated 25/03/2014 passed by the learned Additional Director of Panchayat in Panchayat Appeal No.170/2010, has been confirmed. The learned Additional Director of Panchayat had, in turn, confirmed the order dated 12/10/2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish his house on the ground that it is constructed without permission/ licence from the respondent no.1-Village Panchayat. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of house No.479 of village Kundaim, Ponda, Goa, which was said to be in dilapidated condition, requiring urgent repairs and repla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›