Court : Mumbai Goa
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 of such witness is necessary for the just decision of the case. the learned counsel has pointed out that it is the specific defence of the petitioner that the loan amount was never credited in his account or paid to him but was paid to the mother of one of the sureties. it is submitted that this aspect has not been properly put and brought out in the cross examination. the learned counsel submits that it is not always possible for an accused to set out and disclose the defence in details while .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
heard shri s. kamat malyekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and shri c. mascarenhas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. by consent, heard forthwith. 3. by this petition, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in regular civil suit no. 73/2010/b, pending before the learned civil judge senior division, 'b' court, vasco-da-gama (trial court, for short), has challenged the order dated 20/04/2012 passed by the trial court in the said suit whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. the facts relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this petition are as follows: the petitioner has filed the said suit for specific performance of contract, injunction and other reliefs. in the plaint, inter alia, the petitioner has averred that he had paid to the respondent no.1 an amount of rs. 3,00,000/- (rs. three lacs only) as part consideration for purchase of the suit flat towards which receipts were obtained from respondent no.1. according to the petitioner, the said contention of the petitioner regarding payment of rs. 3,00,000/- (rs. three lacs only) was admitted by the respondents in paragraph 12 of their written statement. in the memo of appeal preferred by the respondents, before the district judge, against the order of injunction passed by the trial court on 22/09/2008, in misc. civil appeal no. 88/2009/ftc-i, the respondents had raised a ground .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. admit. 2. the learned additional public prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. by this criminal revision application, the original accused is challenging the order dated 01/12/2014, by which, the learned additional sessions judge, panaji has directed a charge under sections 306, 304-b and 498-a of indian penal code (i.p.c., for short) to be framed against the applicant. 5. the brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the revision application, may be stated thus: that the applicant was married with now deceased fatima pereira on 20/09/2008. it is said that the deceased was highly educated and was working as a lecturer in mathematics. according to the prosecution, the marriage ran into rough weather shortly thereafter and the parties started staying separately from 27/11/2008. while the deceased fatima was staying with her father thomas pereira, she committed suicide by hanging. the incident occurred on 06/04/2009. on the basis of the complaint lodged by thomas pereira, an offence came to be registered with the concerned police station and on investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498-a and 304-b of i.p.c. before the learned sessions court at panaji. it appears that the learned sessions judge heard the parties on the point of framing of charge and by the impugned order dated 01/12/2014, has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: (f.m. reis, j.) 1. heard shri ryan menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mr. v. rodrigues, learned additional government advocate appearing for respondents no. 1, 3 to 5, mr. l. raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and shri d. j. pangam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6. 2. the above writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction or order under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19/06/2007 passed by the respondent no. 1 to the extent it relegates the comunidade to a civil suit thereby refusing to take action under the statute to demolish the disputed structure. 3. briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that he is a component of comunidade of usgao and that the comunidade is the owner in possession of the property bearing survey no. 207/1 of usgao village. it is further their case that the respondent no. 6 obtained a permission from the local panchayat some where on 28/03/2006 for the construction of a house in the property bearing survey no. 207/7-d. it is further his case that in july, 2006, the respondent no. 6 started digging foundations of pits in the properties survey no. 207/1 and not in survey no. 207/7-d. it is further the case of the petitioner that he had lodged a complaint to the respondent no. 1 and other authorities with regard to the encroachment in the comunidade property bearing survey no. 207/1 by digging the said pits. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. both the above appeals shall be disposed of by this common judgment since both arises out of the same judgment and award dated 03/07/2006 passed by the learned district judge, panaji (reference court, for short) in land acquisition case no. 75 of 2002. the appellant of first appeal no. 292 of 2006 who is the respondent in first appeal no. 294 of 2006 was the applicant in the said l.a.c. no. 75 of 2002 whereas the respondents of first appeal no. 292 of 2006 who are the appellants in first appeal no. 294 of 2006 were the respondents in the said case. parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said land acquisition case. 3. vide notification dated 08/01/1991 issued under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 ( l. a. act, for short) and published in the official gazette dated 25/01/1991, the government had acquired land for the purpose of widening of two lanes and improvement of geometrics between km. 116/00 to 121/950 on nh 4 a. this acquisition included portion of the land admeasuring 1279 square meters from survey no. 94/4 (area of 1164 square meters was cashew grove and remaining 115 square meters was road) and a portion of land admeasuring 1638 square meters from survey no. 107/3 of village khandepar, ponda. by award dated 15/03/1994, the land acquisition officer (l.a.o., for short) awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 5/- per square meter in respect of the road area acquired .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. heard mr. bhobe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and mr. agha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. mr. agha waived service of notice on behalf of the respondent. by consent heard forthwith. 3. by this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, ftc-ii, margao ("appellate court", for short) in criminal appeal no.92 of 2012. the said criminal appeal was directed against the order dated 31/08/2012 passed by the learned judicial magistrate, first class "c" court, vasco-da-gama ("j.m.f.c.", for short), in criminal case no.27/dva/2010/c. the petitioner was the complainant whereas the respondent was respondent no.1 in the said criminal case, wherein there were five more respondents. parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned j.m.f.c. 4. the complainant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 ("the act", for short) against the respondents which came to be registered as criminal case no.27/dva/2010/c. it was the case of the complainant that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 09/11/2009 according to the muslim rites and ceremony at kushi nagar, uttar pradesh. the respondents are permanent resident of haryana and the respondent no.1 is working as a professor in kurushetra university .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard mr. f. devitre, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, mr. a.n.s. nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, mr. s. malyekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and mr. vineet naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. admit. heard forthwith. 3. the learned counsel for the respondents waive service as the notice was given for final disposal at the stage of admission. 4. the above appeal challenges an order dated 01.11.2013 passed by the learned civil judge senior division, mapusa, whereby an application filed by the respondent no.1 for urgent interim relief came to be allowed and the reliefs as mentioned in the impugned order came to be granted. 5. before i proceed to examine the rival contentions advanced by the learned senior counsels appearing for the appellants and the respondents, i will briefly record the relevant facts of the case. the respondent no.1 filed a suit inter-alia contending that they are the lessee of the subject property situated at candolim which was given as a security for the loan granted to the respondent no.2 by the appellants herein. the respondent no.1 claiming to be a lessee of such property and for other reasons filed a suit in terms of section 91(a) of the transfer of property act, inter-alia alleging that they have a right of redemption of the mortgage created by the respondent no.3 in favour of the appellants herein. in the said suit an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. the appellants challenges the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the learned ad-hoc district judge-1, north goa at panaji in land acquisition case no. 35/2010 by which the learned reference court has allowed the reference of the respondent under section 18 of the land acquisition act, ( the act ? for short) and enhanced the compensation to the extent of rs.202/- per square metre. 2. parties shall hereinafter referred as per their original status. 3. the brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- an area of 140 square metres belonging to the applicant/respondent herein was acquired from survey no. 43/7 situated at madkai village in ponda taluka for the purpose of construction of a road from main road madkai, tonca to satki lake in v.p. madkai in ponda taluka. 4. the respondent issued and published notification dated 29.12.2005 under section 4(1) of the act and notification under section 6 of the act was issued on 18.8.2006. the award was passed on 31.12.2007 by the land acquisition officer and possession of the acquired land was taken on 6.09.2010 by making payment of the compensation. the land acquisition officer awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 58/- per square metre for the acquired land. 5. being aggrieved with the same, the applicant made a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act on the grounds that the acquired land has building potentials and similar land in the locality was sold at rs.300/- per square metre. the market value of the land of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. 2. this writ petition takes an exception to the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned adhoc senior civil judge at mapusa thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs for carrying out amendment to the plaint in terms of order 6 rule 17 of c.p.c. 3. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order is arbitrary and perverse as it does not apply the test of due diligence properly to the facts of the present case. he submits that the learned civil judge has completely ignored the fact that after the disposal of the suit, there were several other writ petitions between the same parties, one of which also resulted in restoration of the suit with direction of expeditious disposal of the suit to the trial court which showed that the petitioners were pursuing their case with reasonable care, caution and effort. 4. learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is well settled law that liberal approach has to be adopted while allowing amendment to the pleadings of the party and that such an approach is necessary to do justice between parties and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. in support of his argument he has placed reliance on the following cases: (i) pankaja and another vs. yellappa (d) by lr's and others, (2004) 6 scc 415; (ii) abdul rehman and another vs. mohd. ruldu and others, (2012) 11 scc 341 and (iii) shri rajaram naik vs. the state of goa and others, 2016 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
heard s. shet, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and mr. b. sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. rule made returnable forthwith. 3. heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. mr. b. sardessai, learned advocate waives notice on behalf of th e respondents. 4. by this petition the original defendant no. 4 has challenged the order passed by the learned additional senior civil judge(ad-hoc), margao below exh. 41 dated 4.12.2014 by which the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 5. brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- the suit for the declaration was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 11 against the present petitioner and respondent nos. 12 to 14. summons were duly served upon the petitioner. the petitioner appeared on 17.7.2012 and matter was fixed for filing written statement on 2.8.2012. however, the defendant no.4/present petitioner failed to remain present. subsequently matter was fixed on 30.8.2012. at that time also the present petitioner fail to remain present. it was noted that though the present petitioner was duly served she remained absent and no written statement was filed. at the first appearance, the petitioner put up her appearance on 10.10.2013 through her lawyer, even on that day the petitioner did not seek time to file written statement nor she filed written statement. thereafter no written statement was filed by the petitioner for about five months and subsequently .....
Tag this Judgment!