Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard mr. s. d. lotlikar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and mr. j.e. coelho pereira, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. the above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16th january, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law : (i) whether the suit could be said to be falling one under article 59 or article 60 of the limitation act, 1963? (ii) whether the first appellate court fell in error in holding that the limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge or the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiffs? (iii) whether it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have claimed possession also as a relief along with declaration and injunction? 3. mr. s.d. lotlikar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of the first and second substantial questions of law, has pointed out that the suit filed by the appellants has to be considered in terms of article 60 of the limitation act, 1963 as, according to him, it is the contention of the respondents that the disputed sale deed executed in the year 1977 was defeating the rights of the minors and, as such, the suit had to be filed within three years from the date of attaining majority. the learned senior counsel has further pointed out that one of the respondents was a minor when the disputed sale deed was executed and the other respondents immediately after the sale deed was executed and, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
k.l. wadane, j. 1. the present petition is filed by the petitioners/original accused nos. 1 to 3 under the provisions of section 482 of the criminal procedure code and prayed to quash and set aside the fir and charge sheet submitted against them. 2. the brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: the respondent no.2 herein filed a complaint dated 05.12.2009 alleging that on 02.12.2009 the respondent no.2 along with his two friends namely advocate ryan menezes and advocate pravin faldessai went to have tea at tato restaurant at panjim and the bill was around rs.35/-. therefore, the respondent no.2 paid cash of rs.40/- consisting of four currency note of rs.10/- each. after some time, the waiter returned a paper saying that it was rs.5/- note to which the respondent no.2 shocked. on the basis of said contention, the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint with panjim police station and requested for necessary action. 3. respondent no.1 after conducting an inquiry was of the opinion that it is not a fit case to register an offence against the petitioners. therefore, the respondent no.2 has approached to the superintendent of police requesting for registration of fir. thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed an application under the provisions of section 156(3) of criminal procedure code before the judicial magistrate first class, panaji, bearing criminal misc. application no. 90/2010/d. the learned magistrate allowed the said application and gave direction to the concerned police .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. rule made returnable forthwith. the learned counsel for the respondents waives service. heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. the petitioners herein are the original defendant nos. 2 to 6, while the respondent nos. 1 to 13 are the original plaintiffs. for the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their original capacity. the plaintiffs filed special civil suit no. 16/2013, against petitioners and others for permanent and mandatory injunction. the subject matter of dispute is 16,168 square metres of land out of survey no. 60/2 (old matriz no. 786) of the property known as um terreno oiteral aforado situated at sancoale. 3. the case made out in the plaint is that the larger area bearing matriz no. 786 situated at sancoale, dabolim village, mormugao, was belonging to shri marcal alias joao paulo mesquita, who died intestate leaving behind his moiety holder, smt. joaquina mesquita (defendant no. 1). marcal mesquita sold 3,932 square metres of land to shri domingos dias vide sale deed dated 05.03.1969, while an area admeasuring 2,500 square metres was sold to smt. vasanti lotlikar on 04.09.1969. marcal mesquita sold the remaining land from out of said property vide sale deed dated 18.02.1970 to shri sheikh shirajuddin and others (defendant nos. 7 to 41). the present petitioners claim to have purchased 16, 168 square metres of land from shri sheikh shirajuddin under sale deed dated 21.07.2011. 4. it is the specific case made out in the plaint that the present .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
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 branch canal of the salaulim irrigation project at navelim. the lao vide his award dated 3.1.1996 had awarded the compensation at rs.5/- per square metre and being aggrieved thereby the original applicant had filed a reference under section 18 of the act claiming the enhanced compensation at the rate of rs.350/- per square metre and which was enhanced to rs.68/- per square metre. brief facts of the first appeal no.297/2007 6. the government had acquired the land of the respondent bearing survey .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. admit. 3. shri g. agni, learned advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. the original applicant before the learned principal district judge, north goa panaji has filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned judge under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 ( the act for short hereinafter) pursuant to which he declined to secure the appellant with the interim measures of relief under section 9 of the act which is akin to an order under order xxxix cpc. 5. shri j. ramaiya, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant came to be heard who first contended that the learned principal district judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that the deed of partnership was a camouflage. such an examination of the deed was open to an arbitrator, if any, appointed in the proceedings but it was not available to the district judge to examine the nuances of the deed of partnership. he adverted to the relevant provisions of the partnership act, submitted that there was no dissolution of the partnership till date and therefore, in the circumstances the appellant had to be secured with the interim measure of protection as contemplated under section 9 of the act. 6. shri agni, learned advocate for the respondents opened his arguments by contending at the outset that the appellant had to show that the business of the partnership was in progress and that the partnership business was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: (f.m. reis, j.) 1. heard shri j. e. coelho, pereira, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant and shri e. o. mendes, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. the above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014 passed in special civil suit no. 4/2013 by learned senior civil judge, vasco da gama, whereby the suit filed by the appellants was partly decreed and the respondents were directed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of rs.10,89,000/- as arrears of payment of rent for the period from may 2012 to july 2012 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 31.07.2012 to the date of the payment. the respondents were also directed to pay to the appellants a further sum of rs,.93,678/- as arrears of rent from 01.08.20125 to 08.08.2012 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 31.08.2012 till the date till the date of payment. the respondents were also directed to pay the arrears of the electricity charges till the date of the suit together with costs. 3. briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the appellants are that the appellants who are the original plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents who are the original defendants, inter alia, seeking the aforesaid reliefs granted by learned trial judge besides a further sum of rs.7,50,000/- as mesne profits and also for a relief to direct the respondents to vacate the suit shed, and also that the respondents be directed to pay a sum of rs.7,50,000/- as mesne .....
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: heard shri v. palekar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and mrs. a. agni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. the above appeal has been admitted by this court on 22/10/2008 on the following substantial question of law: whether the directors drawing remuneration in excess of the statutory maximum could be counted for the purpose of arriving at the statutory minimum number of employees for deciding coverage? 3. shri v. palekar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants also filed the above miscellaneous civil application no.801/2008 to produce additional documents under the provisions of order 41 rule 27 of the civil procedure code. 4. this court by order dated 5/03/2010 directed that the said application be decided at the time of the disposal of the appeal. hence, the learned counsel addressed submissions in support of their rival contentions on the above appeal as well as the said application. 5. shri v. palekar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his appeal has pointed out that the learned e.s.i. court at panaji whilst passing the impugned judgment dated 17/11/2007 has failed to appreciate the evidence of aw1 shri v.k. naik who was apparently the director at the relevant time to come to the conclusion that the directors are to be included to arrive at the minimum number of employees for the purpose of considering whether the appellants would come within the coverage from the period 1991 to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: this second appeal was filed by the original defendant nos. 1 to 4/appellants herein challenging judgment and decree dated 10th june, 2002 passed by the lower appellate court. respondent no.1 herein who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. the appellants herein are relatives of the original plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein. 2. the plaintiff contended in the suit that in the village of guirim, there exists a vast property known as collounch alias vancio belonging to one pedro incacio gonsalves. one residential house, which is situated there was occupied by late babuso r. chodankar somewhere in the year 1954 which is surveyed under no. 54-9 and bearing house no. e-102 admeasuring 122 square metres. the said house is referred to as the suit house. besides this house, late babuso chodankar, the father of plaintiff possessed three paddy fields which were described as under:- a) a paddy field known as kudshet situated at mapusa and admeasuring about 1809 sq. mts and surveyed under no. 3/1. b) a paddy field known as annagoli situated at gurim and surveyed under no. 74/2 and 3 and 75/1 and 3 and admeasuring about 1800 sq. mts. c) a paddy field known as shelimchem akhon' survey 48/29 and admeasuring about 11.75 h.a.(hereinafter all three fields are referred as suit fields.) 3. the plaintiff submitted that the original defendant no.1 widow of late babuso chodankar is the mother of the plaintiff and original defendant nos. 2 and 4 are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard mr. kamat malyekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, mr. rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.6 and 8 and mr. menezes, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. rule. rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. by this petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/08/2013, passed by the administrative tribunal in miscellaneous civil application no. 81/2013/condone, in comunidade appeal. 4. respondent no.1 is the administrator of comunidades, an authority constituted under the code of comunidades ('the code' for short). respondent no.2 is the comunidade of calangute. respondent no.3 is the clerk in-charge of respondent no.2. respondent no.4 is the president of respondent no.2 for triennium 2013-2016. respondent no.5 is the elected substitute president of respondent no.2 for the said triennium 2013-2016. respondents no.6 and 7 are the elected treasurers and substitute treasurers of respondent no. 2 for the triennium 2013-2016 and lastly respondent no. 8 is the attorney and respondent no.9 is the substitute attorney of respondent no.2, elected for the triennium 2013-2016. 5. the general election for the managing board of respondent no.2 was held on 13/01/2013 and respondents no.4 to 9 came to be declared elected as office bearers of respondent no.2. alleging that the said election was illegal and held in total defiance of law, .....
Tag this Judgment!