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!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
f.m. reis, j. the above appeal was fixed for final disposal on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 23.01.2014. 1. whether the rear courtyard inclosed by walls of a residential unit could be included as built-up area of the residential unit ? 2. whether the learned tribunal can inquire into and get measured the courtyard which was not included in the built-up area and which is not the lis between the parties ? 2. we have heard mr. chythanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and ms. a. desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee submitted its return of income declaring a total income of rs.53,620/- on 30.10.2006. an order was passed under section 143(3) of the income tax act on 21.11.2008 on the returned income of rs.53,620/-. thereafter, cit invoked its jurisdiction under section 263 and set aside the order passed under section 143(3) vide order dated 30.3.2011 with a direction to the ao to examine the relevant facts in connection with the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 80-ib(10) of the income tax act. the ao proceeded to examine the claim of deduction of the appellant under section 80-ib(10) amounting to rs.1,71,24,680/-. the ao ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant was granted permission on 07.07.2003 by the margao municipal council for construction of row villas with built-up area of 1500 square feet comprising of ground floor and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: 1. heard learned special public prosecutor for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. this is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 rendered in criminal case no. 1/c/2005/a passed by learned chief judicial magistrate, south goa, margao, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the customs act, 1962. 3. briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: on 14.07.2003 at about 14:00 hours when the respondent accompanied by two ladies namely, smt. shobha khira and ms. tina khira had checked in to board indian airlines flight to sharjah, officers of the appellant having received prior information intercepted the respondent and the two ladies accompanying him in order to find out if they were carrying with them any goods in contravention of the provisions of section 135(1)(c)(ii) read with section 113(d) of the customs act. upon interrogation, it was noticed that the respondent and the said two ladies had already checked in their baggage but, were also carrying with them one hand bag each as cabin baggage. when the checked in baggage and cabin baggage were subjected to search, it was found that there were some foreign currencies kept in the bag belonging to the respondent. on personal search of the respondent, it was further found that the respondent was carrying with him in the wallet also some foreign currencies. the foreign currencies consisted of various currency .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: (m.s. sanklecha, j.) 1. rule; returnable forthwith. the respondents waive service. at the request of the counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india challenges the notice dated 28/10/2014 issued under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961 (the act). the impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009. 3. the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice dated 28/10/2014 for reopening of assessment are on the following two grounds: (i) under invoicing of the exports on the basis of justice m. b. shah commission's report; and (ii) income arising out of mining is an illegal income, in view of the supreme court order dated 21/04/2014 in writ petition c. no.435/2012 which had held that the mining leases in goa had expired on 22/11/2007. consequently, the income accrued for the assessment year 2008-2009 cannot be said to be legitimate business income chargeable as income from profits and gains of business but under income from other sources. 4. the petitioner, by letter dated 09/02/2015 objected to the reasons recorded in support of the notice. amongst various contentions raised by the petitioner was the fact that they were not holding any mining leases. thus, the second reason recorded would not apply. this is so as they were only in the business of buying of iron ore, processing it and exporting the processed iron ore. besides, various other contentions .....
Tag this Judgment!