Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. heard rival submissions on this criminal writ petition preferred purported to be under article 226 of the constitution of india. what is challenged is the order passed by the sessions court dated 9/2/2010 in criminal revision application no.165/2008. said criminal revision was filed by the state challenging the order passed by the j.m.f.c discharging the present petitioner on 21/8/2008 in the police case for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 of i.p.c. the said police case was filed on the initiation of the f.i.r lodged by the original complainant. said f.i.r was lodged on 16/9/2005 for taking action against the present petitioner for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of i.p.c. on completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed on 27/12/2007. however, the accused was discharged by the j.m.f.c vide order dated 21/8/2008. 3. again another factual position is required to be mentioned in order to ascertain whether the present criminal writ petition can be entertained or not. the said factual position is to the effect that after the criminal revision no.165/2008 challenging the discharge of the accused, preferred by the state was allowed, the said order was challenged but belatedly by the present petitioner and that proceeding was under stamp no.954/2011 along with delay condonation application. said proceeding remained before the registrar (judicial) for removing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. heard finally by consent. 3. this petition challenges the order dated 7/7/2015 passed by the learned senior civil judge "a' court, ponda in special civil suit no.22/2007/a thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit for grant of permission to produce the additional documents on record. 4. the suit that has been filed by the respondents against the petitioners, claims refund of advance of rs.30.00 lakhs together with interest and other sums of money from the petitioners. the petitioners have resisted the suit by filing a written statement. the petitioner no.1 is a company and on its behalf one shri k. mohan, son of kala bhairava entered the witness box as the first witness of the petitioners. during the cross examination of this witness, it transpired that he had not produced on record any letter of authority or copy of the resolution authorizing him to appear and depose on behalf of petitioner no.1. when the cross examination was going on, the petitioners filed an application for grant of permission to produce additional documents. among the additional documents sought to be produced were a copy of a resolution and a letter of authority authorizing said shri k. mohan to depose on behalf of petitioner no.1. this application was strongly opposed by the respondents. after .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment : 1. heard mr. d. pangam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and ms. amira razaq, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. the above appeal challenges the order passed by the official liquidator dated 20/04/2011, whereby the claim put forward by the appellant came to be rejected. 3. mr. d. pangam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was a workman in the establishment of the company in liquidation and that as his dues were not paid, the workman raised claims with that regard before different authorities. the learned counsel further pointed out that at the time when the company in liquidation went on strike, it ultimately led to its closure. the learned counsel also points out that somewhere in the year 2001 there was a settlement arrived before the conciliation officer between the union to which the appellant belongs, with the company in liquidation. the learned counsel further points out that thereafter on 28/09/2001, the company went in liquidation and an official liquidator was appointed by the court. the learned counsel further submits that in the year 2004, the appellant raised a claim before the official liquidator for all the arrears of wages and other benefits to which the appellant was entitled. the learned counsel further submits that a part of the claim of the appellant was allowed whereas a substantial claim came to be rejected and, consequently, the appellant preferred an appeal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard mr. anthony d'silva, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. none for the respondents though served. 2. the above appeal came to be admitted on 30/07/2008 on the following substantial question of law: 1. whether the first appellate court has misconstrued the document of title of the plaintiffs/appellants? 2. whether the first appellate court wrongly cast the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the suit was within limitation? 3. mr. anthony d'silva, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that the appellants claim to be owners in possession of the property which came to be gifted in favour of the appellants pursuant to a gift deed dated 26/10/1962 executed by the parents of the appellants. the learned counsel further points out that based on the said gift deed the property was described in land registration office under no.26371 and inscribed in inscription no.22629 in the name of the appellants. the learned counsel further submits that the said property is also inscribed in the matriz records under no.546 and in the survey records under no.37/3, 37/4 and 37/40-a of village nagarcem, canacona, taluka. the learned counsel further submits that when the appellants obtained a copy of the survey records they learnt that the survey records did not disclose the name of the appellants and, as such, filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and for correction of the survey records. the learned counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. mr. desai, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. heard finally by consent. 2. the brief facts are that, the first respondent has filed a suit being special civil suit no.26/2011 for specific performance of a mou against the petitioners, (defendants no.1 and 2) and the respondent no.3 (defendant no.3). the petitioners were issued with the suit summons. the bailiff report dated 10/6/2011 in respect thereof reads as under: this is to certify that i had visited at piedade divar to serve this summons to def no.1, 2 and 3 i met the def no.1,2 and 3 and i explained the contents of the summons to them in konkani but they refused to accept the summons also they did not permit me to affix the summons on the main door of the house as required o.5. r.17 of the c.p.c. the def no.4 mt. michael sequeira serve through wife re at porgovaddo piedade divar and i handed over the duplicate copy of the summon along with all annexure to her and obtained her signature. panag (sign) date 10/6/11 bailiff affidavit i, shri santosh naik bailiff of civil and criminal court is hereby solemnly affirmed on oath that the contents of my report dated 10/6/11 is true to my personal knowledge. nothing is false and nothing is concealed. place: (sign) dated:16/6/11 bailiff before me (sign) 16/6/2011 head clerk 3. it appears that on the basis of the said bailiff report, the learned trial court had proceeded ex parte against the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment : 1. by this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 16/12/2011 passed by the learned judicial magistrate, first class, at quepem, by which, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (the act, for short). 2. the brief facts are that the appellant was working as a teacher in new educational institute, churchorem, where the husband of the first respondent/ accused was an headmaster. this is shown to be the reason for acquaintance between the appellant and the first respondent. the appellant came with a case that the first respondent had approached him, for a hand loan from time to time to meet her 'urgent requirements'. according to the appellant, for a period from june 2006 to december, 2007, the appellant had advanced various amounts ranging from rs.30,000/- to rs.80,000/- to the respondent, totalling to rs.7 lakhs. the first respondent had promised to repay the said amount within a month from the date of the last payment of rs.75,000/- on 05/12/2007. however, she failed therein. the appellant with the intervention of the avdhuth kakodkar, the husband of the first respondent could obtain two post dated cheques from the first respondent for rs.3 lakhs and rs.4 lakhs each. the present appeal pertains to the cheque dated 09/05/2008 for rs.3 lakhs. on presentation of the said cheque for realisation, it was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. by this appeal the appellant complainant is challenging the acquittal of the respondent from the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act (hereinafter referred as to 'the act'). 2. brief facts are that the appellant is a urban credit co-operative society. sometime in the year 2003 the appellant had advanced a loan of rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent. the said loan was repayable in monthly installments of rs.4,200/- plus accrued interest. the loan was repayable in total sixty monthly installments. according to the appellant, the respondent defaulted in the matter of repayment of the loan and the account had become a non-performing asset. further, according to the appellant, the respondent approached the appellant and had issued a cheque dated 13th january, 2007 for rs.3,78,195/- towards repayment of the loan, which got dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. hence, after issuance of the statutory notice, the appellant filed a complaint under section 138 of the act before the judicial magistrate, first class, mapusa. 3. it appears that on behalf of the appellant one kishorechandra korgaonkar its, assistant manager, was examined and the appellant produced certain documents including the subject cheuqe, memos and the copy of the notice etc. the appellant also produced an extract of the ledger of the loan account at exh.15. there was no evidence led by the respondent. the learned magistrate by a judgment and order dated 13th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. heard. admit. 2. ms. palyekar, the learned counsel waives service for the respondent nos.1(i) to (iii). shri ramani, the learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.2. 3. second appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 4. the appellants are the original plaintiffs. respondent nos.1(i) to (iii) are the legal representatives of vinayak naik, original defendant no.1 who is the brother of the appellant no.1. the second respondent is an urban cooperative bank. 5. according to the appellants, the appellant no.1 had obtained a loan of rs.45,000/- from the second respondent. it is contended that the loan was obtained in the name of original defendant no.1 vinayak naik (since deceased). the appellants had pledged their gold ornaments as a security for the loan with the bank. it is undisputed that the entire loan amount has been repaid on 07/06/2002 and the loan account is closed. the amount has been repaid by the appellants. 6. some time towards the end of 2001, relations between the appellants and vinayak naik soared and vinayak naik refused to consent for release of the gold ornaments to the appellants. the second respondent had insisted for an authority letter/ no objection certificate from vinayak naik for release of gold ornaments. vinayak refused to do so. it appears that the matter was also reported to the police, followed by a legal notice issued by the appellants on14/01/2003, calling upon vinayak naik to hand over the gold ornaments. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard shri ressano de noronha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and shri r. g. rivankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. rule. heard forthwith, by consent. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. the above petition, inter alia, seeks to challenge the order passed by the civil judge, junior division at bicholim dated 18/10/2014, whereby the application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. 5. upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, i find that a suit for injunction and restoration of possession in respect of the suit property survey no.424/0 situated at village tivim came to be resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the disputed construction has been put up in the property survey no.426/0 of the same village. it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on 29/06/2013 and 04/04/2014, the petitioners came to know about the existence of the tombo plan and other relevant documents from the concerned comunidade, which according to the petitioners, inter alia, disclose that the disputed structure is in fact located in the property bearing lote no.405 of the said village and as such, the written statement was being amended accordingly. the amendment application was resisted by the respondents on different counts and the learned judge, by the impugned order dated 18/10/2014, has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
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 facts are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 i.e. communidade of cortalim smt. maria pia and three others, (including the petitioner tome carvalho,) were tried for the offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 of i.p.c. in criminal case no.142/s/2003/a before the judicial magistrate first class at vasco-da-gama. the magistrate, by a judgment and order dated 30/07/2011, acquitted all the accused. the prosecution case was that the .....
Tag this Judgment!