Mumbai Goa Court August 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.
Jose Carlos D'Silva and Another Vs. Pedro Xavier Elias D'Cunha @ Pedro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners, who are the original defendants, are challenging the order dated 13/10/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.263/2000/E (old Special Civil Suit No.248/1992/A). By the impugned order, the application for amendment of plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondents filed the aforesaid Civil Suit for mandatory injunction seeking demolition of construction of garage of the petitioners and for their eviction from the suit house. It is a matter of record that the petitioners had raised an issue of mundkarship which was referred to the Mamlatdar on 25/03/1994. The issue was finally answered in favour of the petitioners on 7/01/2014. The records and proceedings were transferred to the Civil Court on 17/07/2014. After that on 10/09/2014, the respon...
Shivram Enterprises Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Having ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Gomes Pereira, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 1 and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks for a declaration that the tender process under the second tender notice dated 20.02.2016 is bad, void ab initio and unconstitutional. It further seeks for a writ of mandamus or any other direction to the Respondent no. 2 to award the tender to the Petitioner for the sale of scrap material and sale of non levy sugar under the tender process dated 20.04.2016 issued by the Respondent no. 2. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 2 published a tender notice dated 20.04.2016 for the sale of scrap material, sale of brown sugar (season 2014/15 and 2015-16 1300 quintals, sale of non levy sugar (season 2014-15) 7295 quintals and the sale of 'A' grade molasses 1500 metric tonnes. I...
Zuari Industries Limited and Another Vs. Union of India through the Ge ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 14/06/2005 passed by the Railway Rates Tribunal of India at Chennai (Tribunal, for short) by which the complaint filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, it appears that the controversy has narrowed down to a great extent and it would not be necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the complainant Zuari Industries Ltd. is manufacturers of fertilizers having their factory situated near Sankval Railway station on the Castle Rock - Vasco section of Hubli Division of the South Western Railway. The bulk of their manufactured fertilizers are transported through railways in rake loads. The factory was set up in the year 1972 and the railway siding was provided at the Sankval railway station for transportation of fertilizers from the factory. The said siding was originally on a Met...
Sussanne Khan Vs. The State of Goa, Through the Public Prosecutor and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service. 3. The above Petition seeks, inter alia, to quash and set aside the FIR bearing no. 119 of 2016 registered with the Panjim Police Station for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that she is the sole Proprietor of Sussanne Khan House of Design previously known as Sussanne Roshan House of Design, who has been in the business for the last fifteen years and has been engaged in several projects as a Design Company. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 3 who is the Complainant, executed a written...
Pundalik Gangadhar Sinai Sanvordekar (since deceased) through his lega ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent nos.1(a) to 1(i) waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 13/04/2016 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge, Margao, by which, the judgment and order dated 30/12/2010 passed by the learned Mamlatdar of Sanguem in Case No. MAM/TNC/DECL/8/99, has been confirmed. By the impugned judgment, the respondents have been declared as tenants of the suit property known as Titapemol Bearing Survey no.18/1, situated at Corranguinim village of Sanguem Taluka. 3. The brief facts are that now deceased Shankar Gopal Bhandari filed an application under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (the Act, for short) against now deceased Pundalik Sanvordekar and Dr. Upendra Sanvordekar, claiming a declaration about he being a tenant of the property bearing Survey No.18/1 at Corranguinim V...
Tulshidas Bablo Gaude @ Pokle Vs. Kanta Bablo Gaude @ Pokle and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2009/A against the respondents/defendants, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Ponda. That suit, is filed for permanent and mandatory injunction on the allegation that somewhere in February, 2009, the original defendant no. 3 alongwith other defendants came to the suit property and demolished the portion of the workshop of the petitioner. It was further alleged that on 17.02.2009, the original defendant no. 1 with the help of the other defendants started doing illegal construction in the suit property. It is also contended that the defendants have removed some portion of the mangalore tiles due to which there was seepage, more particularly in the north eastern corner of the house of the petitioner. The petition...
Sushil Jayant Nanodkar Vs. Dnyaneshwar Vithoba Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
1. This is an appeal challenging judgment and award dated 26.02.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) at Panaji in Claim Petition No. 48/2004. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant/ claimant in respect of permanent partial disablement, resulting out of a vehicular accident. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: On 22.01.2004, the appellant was proceeding from Panaji towards Bambolim on his motorcycle bearing no. GA-01-Y-1943. When he reached Santa Cruz, Merces Junction, a truck bearing no. GA-01-Z-2782 came from the opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant was treated in Goa Medical College Hospital (GMC) till 13.02.2004 and thereafter shifted to Jaslok Hospital, Bombay for specialised treatment. According to the appellant, he was required to undergo several surgeries an...
Yeshwant Raia Lad Vs. M/s U.K. Printers and Stationers and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 26/11/2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No.30/2009, by which the Administrative Tribunal has set aside the order of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller and has remanded the matter, for deciding it afresh. 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus : That Shop No.13 in a building 'Birzamola Bebquegal' situated at Curchorem is the subject matter of dispute. The petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit shop, which was let out to the respondent no.2 Shamsundar Kakodkar (since deleted) on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for a period of five years from the date of the commencement of the agreement dated 05/03/1963. According to the petitioner, by mutual understanding, the rent was increased to Rs.90/- per month. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22(2)(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act,...
Antonio Sergio Costa @ Tony Costa Vs. Rashi Amit Mehra and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
1. On 20/04/2016, a notice for final disposal was issued in this case. The parties are heard and the petition is being disposed off finally. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.132/2010 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Canacona. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was decreed ex-parte against the respondents on 15/03/2012. The petitioner filed Regular Execution Case No.11/2012 for execution of the decree. According to the respondents, they learnt about the passing of the ex-parte decree when the notice in the execution case was served on them in September, 2012 after which they filed CMA No.3/2012 before the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Trial Court by order dated 9/07/2013 dismissed the application holding that the notice in the execution case was served on the respondents on the same address, as was mentioned in the Civil Suit. The Trial Court found that no affidavit was filed on beha...
Thomas Aloysious Ranjit Sales Pontes @ Ranjit Sales Pontes Vs. Isidoro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1,3 and 4 waives service. In this case, notice for final hearing was issued. None appears for the rest of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant no.3 in Special Civil Suit No.138/2006/A pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao. That is a suit filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6 against the respondent nos.7 and 8 and the petitioner. The respondents/plaintiffs are seeking declaration and restoration of possession in which the petitioner has raised a counter claim seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 6/01/1999. It appears that the petitioner moved an application for amendment (Exhibit D-54) for amending the written statement/counter claim by correcting the date of the agreement as 6/02/1999 in the place of 6/01/1999. The learned Trial Court by order dated 20/12/2012 has rejected the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »