Mumbai Goa Court September 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.
Satchit Nana Govenkar and Another Vs. Raghuvir Bhikaji Morajkar and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are the original defendants (appellants before the learned District Court), are challenging the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 422/2010. By the impugned order, an application filed by the petitioners for amendment of their counter claim, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 254/2001 for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership and possession over the suit plot and alleging that the petitioners have encroached on the plot of respondents herein, to the extent of one metre towards the southern corner. The petitioners raised a counter claim claiming that they are entitled to build a stone boundary wall between the plot survey no. 65/1 (belonging to the petitioners)...
Kushnoba Babani Parab Vs. Pundalik Yeshwant Nhavi and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 8/08/2016 below application Exhibit 68 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pernem in Regular Civil Suit No.30/2006. By the impugned order, application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents for a declaration that the petitioner is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property excluding the house existing therein as shown in the plan and for a further declaration that one Apa Bapu Parab or the defendants 3,4 and 5 have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit property and that they have never been in possession or enjoyment of the same. The petitioner is also seeking declaration that the entry in Form no.I and XIV pertaining to the suit prop...
State Bank of India Vs. EDC Ltd. formerly known as Economic Developmen ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.1 waives service. Notice of rule on the other respondents is dispensed with. Heard finally by consent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent no.2 (b) from the record. Leave to delete is granted at the risk of the petitioner. Necessary correction to be carried out forthwith. 3. All these petitions involve a common and connected question and they can be disposed off by this common order. 4. The petitioner, which is a nationalized bank had advanced a loan to M/s. Zuari Barge Constructions of which the proprietor is Mr. Balkrishna G. Kamat (respondent no.2(a) herein). It appears that the petitioner had filed original application dated 20/11/2002 for recovery of Rs.21 lakhs and odd before the Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT for short). The DRT by judgment and order dated 14/10/2003 had allowed the application filed by the petitioner in the following ...
Manguesh Rajaram Wagle and Another Vs. Suresh D. Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
1. Rule in all the petitions. The learned Counselfor the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2(i) to 2(vii) waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions are between the same parties and arise out of the orders passed in R.C.S. No.279/2000/D. They involve common and connected questions of law and fact and as such, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petitions may be stated thus: That 'Garage premises' situated on the ground floor of a building known as 'Yasin Manzil' standing on Chalta No.126 of P.T. Sheet No.66, City Survey of Panaji are the subject matter of dispute and are hereinafter referred to as the suit premises. The petitioners herein are the original plaintiff nos.2(a) and 2(b) while the respondent nos.1 and 2(i) to 2(vii) are the original defendants. Rest of the respondents are co-plaintiffs, along the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their or...
Secretariat Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Co ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.04.2008 passed by the Authorised Person and the Nominee of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa, whereby the Dispute Application No.6/2004/ARCS/CZ filed by the petitioner-Society has been dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Nigalye, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar's Nominee had ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute on account of coming into force of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (the Act of 2001, for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. It is thus contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Mr. Nigalye, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that by an application dated 15.05.2008, the order was sought to be recalled, however, no orders were passed on the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 15.03.2007 and the notification dated 22.01.2008 in order to submit ...
Rabindra A.L. Dias Vs. Eliza D'Silva and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 2 A.O. no.59 of 2015 3. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. 4. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of Civil Procedure Code ( C.P.C. for short) assailing the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2015 passed by the District Judge-II, Margao whereby the learned Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to refer the issue of mundkarship to the Mamlatdar for adjudication. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that he had filed the suit to restrain his mother from alienating the suit property and to restrain the respondent no.1 from interfering in the suit property which was dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 24/03/2015. He had preferred an appeal before the District Court but which had gone at a tangent to the issue of mundkarship and to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to refer the issue of mu...
The Special Land Acquisition and Another Vs. Pauline Barreto @ Pual Ba ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
1. Heard 2. Admit. 3. Shri M. P. Almeida, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents in all the appeals. 4. These are the appeals at the instance of the Special Land Acquisition Officer ( the LAO for short hereinafter) coming up for disposal today challenging the Judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 31.7.2007 pursuant to which the learned District Judge-I as the Reference Court had partly allowed the reference and fixed the market rate in respect of the acquired area at Rs.68/- per square metre alongwith all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for short hereinafter) and the costs of the proceedings. The Parties would be referred to in their original status for brevity's sake hereinafter. 5. Admittedly the Government had acquired the land belonging to the respondent bearing Survey No.164/6 admeasuring 435 square metres pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act for the construction of the br...
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kevin Fernandes ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
1. Admit. 2. Shri E. Afonso, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4. 3. In this appeal filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji ("the Tribunal" for short) in the Claim Petition No.93 of 2013, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the appeal under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). The appeal was not maintainable at the instance of the insurer as no application was filed under Section 170 of the Act. The next plank of objection to the maintainability of the appeal was that it was filed jointly by the insurer with the insured and it was not maintainable also on that count. Shri E. Afonso, learned Advocate for the respondents relied in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v/s. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others [(2002)7 SCC 456] and Chinnama George and others v/s. N. K. Raju and anothe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›