Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Dec-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court, praying for quashing and setting aside of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as the said Act) 3. Petitioner No.1 is owner of the property bearing Survey No. 277/2 (part) of Village Mandrem of Pernem Taluka. A notification dated 19th August, 2011 came to be issued under Section 4 of the said Act, intending to acquire the land along with other lands, for the public purpose of construction of sports village at Mandrem. 4. The petitioners, along with others, had submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Officer subsequently submitted a report to the State Government under Section 5-A. According to the petitioners, Section 6 notification came to be published after a period of one year from the last publication of Section 4 inasmuch as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Dec-10-2013
B.R. Gavai, J. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a declaration that Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002 is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires Section 15(1)(1A)(d)(h) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the quarry lease executed between them and respondents No.3 and 4 on 28th September, 2000. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 12th October, 2004 in interlocutory proceedings in Civil Suit No.133/2004. However, it is submitted at the Bar that now the civil suit itself has been dismissed and first appeal challenging the same has been filed before this Court. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for us to consider the relief in so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are as under: The petitioner claims...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Oct-25-2013
Heard Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia challenges the judgment dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Eviction Appeal No.17/05 filed by the petitioner/tenants against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Rent Controller at Panaji, in case No. ADDL/RENT/4/94 filed by the respondents for the eviction of the petitioner's mother/original tenant. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that by a lease agreement executed in September, 1967, the grandfather of the respondents leased the suit premises to the petitioner's father for residential purpose. By virtue of a family settlement entered into on 24.01.1989, the respondents became the owners of the property in which the suit premises are located on the first floor of one of the residential houses out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Oct-22-2013
Rule in all the petitions. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders dated 16/11/2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao, by which order, the applications filed by the respondents for being permitted to cross-examine the person, who had sworn the affidavit in the applications filed under Section 149/151 of the C.P.C. i.e. one Dipak Rajani, came to be allowed and the said person i.e. Shri Dipak Rajani was directed to submit himself to cross-examination. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above petitions can be stated thus : The petitioners herein and the respondents were involved in Arbitration Proceedings, which culminated in the declaration of the Award dated 29/03/2008. The petitioners invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certoriari or any other writ, the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2006, passed by the learned Rent Controller, at Panaji, in Case no. Rent/ARC/4/99 as well as the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal no. 3/2006. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioners are that on 16.08.1999, the Respondent no. 1 filed an Eviction Proceedings before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the Petitioners from the disputed house bearing Municipal no.73, admeasuring 87 square metres surveyed under Chalta no. 141 of P. T. Sheet no. 45 of the City Survey of Panaji, under the provisions of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1968, (hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jul-19-2013
This appeal questions appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside judgment of conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence of paying compensation quantified at Rs.4,00,000/- or in default to suffer imprisonment for one year imposed upon the respondent by the learned JMFC, 'E' Court, Mapusa Goa on the conclusion of trial of Criminal Case no.OA/NIA/759/P/O6/E before the learned Magistrate. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: The appellant claimed to be a friend of respondent. The respondent approached the appellant in last week of March, 2006 stating that the respondent wanted to renovate his premises and, therefore, needed a sum of Rs.3 lacs which he would repay in about 7 to 8 months. The appellant claimed to have advanced a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- against which the respondent issued 10 cheques dated 31/0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jul-05-2013
The above appeal and cross-objection, both, are directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 30/07/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama (trial Court) in Special Civil Suit no. 45/94/A. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said Special Civil Suit of 45/94/A. 3. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for declaration that the defendant no. 1 is liable to indemnify the plaintiff and consequently to pay Rs.13,00,000/- towards the bill no. 7/B/MS/89 dated 26/12/1989 and further to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 26,30,174.88 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff, who is the sole proprietor of M/s Kilito Ore Carriers, had obtained a barge by name 'M.V. Vinayak' under lease from M/s. Tolani Shipping Limited, Bombay and the same was plied for transportation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : May-10-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : May-10-2013
1. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since they are inter-connected and the suit property claimed by the Government is the same, in both the suits. 2. First Appeal No. 238/2003 has been preferred by the legal representatives of Yeshwantrao D. Chowgule against the judgment, order and decree dated 09/06/2003, passed by learned District Judge South Goa, in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1981(New) / Civil Suit No. 08 of 1974(Old), whereby the said suit filed by said Yeshwantrao Chowgule against the Government of India; Government of Goa; Forest Officers of Goa Government (defendants no. 1 to 5), Comunidade of Balli (defendant no. 6) and one Chandulal Chotai (defendant no. 7) was dismissed. 3. First Appeal No. 45 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment, order and decree dated 03/03/2004, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, in Civil Suit No. 158/1981(New) / 04/1980(Old), whereby the said suit filed by Union of India, through Development ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : May-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. All these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the Petitioners in these Petitions are challenging the vires of Notification dated 13/08/2009, amended Rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and are challenging the instruction dated 10/12/2009 which had been issued by Respondents on the ground that it is contrary to the proviso to section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act). 2. Petitioners in these Petitions have been granted mining lease of various plots of lands mentioned in respective Petitions and pursuant to the said lease which has been granted, they have been carrying on mining activities and are selling ore of various grades. The royalty payable by Petitioners in respect of the said mining lease is covered by provisions of section 9 read with Second Schedule to the MMDR Act The contention of the Petitioners in these Petitions is that the said roya...
Tag this Judgment!