Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Dec-07-2015
1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, at the instance of the original defendants, is to an order dated 01/10/2014 allowing the application (Exhibit 31) filed by the respondent/ plaintiff, for amendment of the plaint. 3. The precise challenge is on the ground that the impugned order amounts to allowing the respondent no.5 to retract their admission namely Murphy Munna Baby is an artistic work?, which is popular since the year 1948. 4. The brief facts are that the respondent filed Civil Suit No.49/2012 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, for permanent injunction, compensation and damages for infringement of trademark and copyright and certain consequential reliefs. 5. It appears that the application for Temporary Injunction filed by the respondent was rejected by an order dated 27/02/2013, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Nov-18-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. This petition was initially filed by the petitioner in person as a Writ Petition. By an order dated 22/07/2013, the petition was directed to be converted into a P.I.L. The petition, inter alia, seeks implementation of the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002 (the Act, for short) and the Rules thereunder. It is contended that the State Government is not seriously taking steps and measures for proper implementation of the said Act, causing huge financial loss to the exchequer and the corresponding unjust enrichment to the persons, brazenly flouting the provisions of the said Act. 2. The petitioner happens to be a Science graduate and former public sector employee, claiming considerable technical, commercial and administrative experience. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.363/2012. This Court, by an order dated 09/08/2012, had directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Secretary, who was directed to take decision in accordance with law, within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Oct-01-2015
1. By this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners/original claimants are challenging the judgment and order dated 13/01/2015 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Arbitration Application No.10/2013. By the impugned judgment the learned District Judge has dismissed the application thereby confirming an order dated 6/07/2013 passed by the learned Arbitrator upholding an objection raised under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('The Act', for short) and thereby rejecting the claim filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai. It is engaged in the business of running hotels and other activities in the hospitality industry since about 1997. The petitioner no.2 is the Chairman of the petitioner no.1. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 in person. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Respondent no. 2, who appears in person, waives service. 4. The petitioners/original respondent nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court for Goa at Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2/2014, by which the learned Judge in exercised of powers under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. directed the petitioners to register an FIR against one of the accused namely Shri Caetano Silva under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act( hereinafter referred to as the Act? for short) and other penal provisions, in ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-28-2015
1. All these Company Appeals involve common and connected questions of law and fact. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These four appeals represent two sets of cross appeals, one each by, Auduth Timblo (AT) being Company Appeal Nos. 1/2013 and 2/2013 and the other by his brother, Dilip Timblo (DT) being Company Appeal Nos. 7/2013 and 8/2013. It would be sufficient to set out the facts in Company Appeal No. 2/2013. Background Facts: 3. The brief facts are that Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Limited (SFIPL), (Company, for short) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) with authorised share capital of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each and 50,000 unclassified shares of Rs.100/- each. The paid up share capital is Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs), divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The Company is in the business of extraction and sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah, C.J.) 1. Both the above Tax Appeal No.6 of 2008 and Tax Appeal No.7 of 2008 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenge the orders dated 12/07/2007 and 19/07/2007, respectively of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench. The relevant Assessment Year is 2002-03 in Tax Appeal No.6/2008 and 2003-2004 in Tax Appeal no.7/2008. 2. In view of the order which will be passed today, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. By order dated 27/02/2008, both the appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim benefit of 10 years exemption by amendment to sub-section (3) of section 10B by Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1/4/1994 or benefit of 8 years exemption under amendment by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect from 1/4/1989, particularly, when assessee commenced manufacturing/production from the year 1993? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-14-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellants/original defendants are challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 157/2010, on 07.05.2011. The appeal filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 25/1997/III, has been dismissed, thereby confirming the decree for Rs.2,58,976.70 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: The respondent/plaintiff was planning to construct a residential cum commercial complex by name The Royal Palms? in the property surveyed under Survey No. 398/1, in the village Benaulim, Taluka Salcete, Goa. The respondent as a R.C.C. Labour Contractor had entered into a contract with the appellants to undertake the construction of the said complex. Accordingly, an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-06-2015
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. Mr. Rohit De Sa, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondents. 4. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. These appeals under Section 10F of Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) arise out of the order dated 18/05/2015, passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), New Delhi on C.A. No.5/C.1/2013 and C.A. No.58/C.1/2013 in C.P. No. 87/2006. All the appeals involve common and connected questions of law and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. The facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeals, may be stated thus : Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Private Ltd. (SFIPL) is a Company incorporated under the Act. The said Company was promoted by late Shri Modu Timblo (MT) in the year 1956. The Company is engaged in the business of mining in Goa and is considered as one of the best mining Corporations. The Company is said to be flagship of Fomento Group of Companies. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jul-16-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ complainant is challenging the acquittal of the first respondent/ accused from an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus: That the appellant and the respondent were good friends. The first respondent had approached the appellant on 03/11/2010, requesting for a financial accommodation of Rs.2 Lakhs, as he was in difficulty. Looking to their relationship, the appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the first respondent on loan basis?. On the same day, the first respondent passed a cheque for Rs.2 Lakhs in favour of the appellant, which was drawn on the account of the first respondent with Bank of Baroda, Margao Branch. When the cheque was deposited by the appellant for encashment on 25/04/2011, the same was dishonoured, which was intimated to the appellant on 30/04/2011. Thereafter, the appellant issued a statuto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jul-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 06/06/2013 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.51/2007. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has rejected the plaint against the respondent / original defendant nos.19 to 22 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C., for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, can be stated thus : That the appellant claims to be the co-owner of properties bearing Survey No.82/2, 82/7 and 82/12 situated at Orda, Candolim, Bardez, Goa. The appellant claims that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property along with the co-owners. Sometime in August, 2006, illegal tree and hill cutting operation was carried out in the said property by some unknown persons/ migrants, without the permission of the appellant or the other co-owners. It was contended that the hill cutting is proh...
Tag this Judgment!