Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
..... of the original information to his immediate official superior or that the same was received by the said superior official. he further submitted that the fact that the accused had nepali features was not recorded by pw8 in the said information reduced in writing and hence the record was incomplete. learned counsel urged that the provision of section 42 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-31-2014
The appeal is filed against Judgment and order of Special Case No.66/2010, which was pending in the Children's Court created for the State for Goa at Panaji-Goa. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be said as follows: The offence is committed against a girl child who was aged about 4 years at the relevant time. The accused was aged about 29 years and he was a married man. The father of the girl child was working as a security guard in campus known as œTropical Estate Private Ltd? at Morod, Sangolda and this complex is situated within the local jurisdiction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.15/2009 which was pending in the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. The maximum sentence of imprisonment given is 10 years. Both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of this appeal can be stated as follows: At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was 60 years of age. She was unemployed lady and she was not having her own shelter. She was leaving in Panaji Municipal market. She used to do petty work of fish vendors and shop owners to earn her livelihood and she used to sleep on the platform in the fish market. 3. The incident took place on the night between 27/12/2008 and 28/12/2008 when the prosecutrix was sleeping in the fish market after midnight. The accused came there and he removed the blanket which was taken for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The petitioners have filed Petition No.403 of 2007 challenging the construction of a hotel by Respondent No.6 upon permission granted by respondent No.2 under orders dated 31st July, 1995, 8th October, 1998, 1st September, 2001 and 17th September, 2005 in respect of a specific plan dated 31st May, 1995 and the renewals thereto. Upon the prayer of quashing of these orders the petitioners require directions against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the original nature of the land upon which they have constructed the hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). 2. Upon having seen that the hotel premises has been constructed in the No Development Zone (NDZ) of the CRZ without the approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF), which is mandatorily required, the petitioners have filed Petition No. 659 of 2010 for quashing the NOCs of respondent No.4 dated 16th September, 2008, 5th July, 2010 and 6th July, 2010 and constru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-05-2014
1. By order dated 06/03/2013, notices were issued to the respondents by putting the parties to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the award dated 27/02/2012 passed by respondent no.1 in Case No. XVI(6)DC(LA)/2008 and has prayed for a consequent direction to respondents no. 3 to 6 to return the money received by them under the impugned award with interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. 5. An area of 3000 square metres comprised in a quarry, falling in R-Zone, at Dona Paula and located opposite the British Cemetery, from Chalta No. 1(P) of P.T. Sheet No. 188 of City Survey, Panaji, recorded in the name of respondent no. 6, was notified by Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) for sanitary land fill site at Panaji for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under No.126/1 admeasuring 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Jun-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.61/2003. The said land acquisition case was filed under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (the Act for short) for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. metre. The said reference has been rejected by the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. By the notification dated 16th March, 1992, under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, the restrictions as specified in clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act were imposed upon use and enjoyment of the appellant's land situated in Village Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, South Goa District being the land in the vicinity of the Naval Armament Depot, Goa. The Land Acquisition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : May-08-2014
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. E. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 31.05.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No.105/90 whereby the suit filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3. In the nutshell, the case of the appellant is that they are one of India's leading salvage companies and had carried out salvage operations on different occasions and that they were sanctioned to purchase a secondhand foreign vessel known as œSayremar Dos?. Accordingly, the said vessel was purchased for Rs.38,13,842.10/- which was partly financed by Bank of Maharashtra. It is further their case that they had carried out various improvements to the vessel and the insurance policy was renewed in February, 1988. The value of the vessel was increased to Rs.60 lakhs based on the valuation of the vessel. It is further their ca...
Tag this Judgment!