Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents from an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(I) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act, for short). 2. Brief facts are that PW1 Mrs. Jyoti Sardessai, who is the complainant in this case, and a Drugs Inspector, had visited the premises of M/s. Matrix Pharma, Ponda, Goa on 14/01/2004 and collected the sample of a medicine 'Caryrox', Batch No.C202, which is a patent and proprietary medicine. It is a suspension of a generic drug 'Roxithromycin'. The drug was manufactured by the respondent no.3 of which the respondent no.4 is a proprietor under loan license from the respondent no.1, of which the respondent no.2 is a proprietor. The manufacturing date of medicine is July, 2002 and the expiry was shown as June 2004. According to the prosecution, the sample was collected as per the established procedure. When the sample was sent for analysis by the State Laboratory in Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 1/07/2013 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.30/2013 by Adhoc District Judge “ 1 (FTC), Panaji. The petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay, which was of 400 days, which occurred in preferring an appeal against the order dated 30/11/2011, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.42/2011/C by Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji. 3. It was urged by the petitioners that petitioner no.4 was the only conversant party in the matter and as he suffered a paralytic stroke on 9/12/2011, i.e. immediately after passing of the order dated 30/11/2011, which was followed by a heart attack in March, 2012, for which ailments, the conversant party was on continuous medical treatment, he could not take a decision about preferring of the appeal. It was also submitted by him that having regard to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the Judgment dated 14/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 has been challenged. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in short, are as follows : Eviction proceedings were initiated against the deceased appellant no.1 and his wife, the appellant no. 2(defendants) by respondents no. 2 to 7 and two others (plaintiffs), by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 267/1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The suit house is the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 situated at Taleigao. The Plaintiffs contended that the suit house was built up by one Radhabhai Khandeparkar alias Oidem, in the property of the plaintiffs with their permission and she was residing there alone as licensee and died in 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. The plaintiffs further claimed that on or about 28/07/1975, the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Whether the petitioner has ceased to be a citizen of India, on account of the petitioner voluntarily getting his birth registered in the Central Registry of Births at Lisbon, Portugal (Central Registry at Lisbon), is the question which falls for determination in this petition. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioner was born in Benaulim village, Salcete, Goa on 21/10/1959 and his birth is registered under entry no.3125 of the Registrar of Births maintained under Codigo Registro Civil , which was then in force in Goa, which was under a Portuguese Colonial Rule. The petitioner is a registered voter from Benaulim constituency at Serial No.445 of part 21 of electoral roll of 32, Benaulim constituency for the Legislative Assembly of State of Goa. The petitioner had contested the election to the Goa Legislative Assembly as a candidate of Goa Vikas Party (GVP) on 06/03/2012 and has been declared elected and is presently a member of ...
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 Dia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996. 3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed for eviction against the original defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased original plaintiff. The respondents had sought vacant possession of House No. 43/9, Survey No.159/9 of village Candolim (hereinafter referred to as the suit house) vide Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. According to the petitioners, this suit was filed by the respondents out of grudge that respondents nurtured against the petitioners on account of the petitioners having lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 of Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors. 2. The above appeal and cross objection have been filed against the judgment and award dated 04/07/2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 2010. The respondents of the appeal, who are the cross-objectors, were the applicants in the said Land Acquisition Case, whereas the appellants were the respondents therein. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 16/12/2004 and in two news papers (Sunaparant and Herald) dated 18.12.2004, land was acquired for the work of improvement and widening of road from old survey office to T.V.S. Show R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed in April 2013, the Petitioner has challenged : (a) the orders dated 30 November 1988, 8 September 1993, 20 May 1996 and 11 September 1996, and other orders passed by Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka in South Goa District in the years from 1992 to 1996, declaring Respondent no.3 Victor Luis Monteiro as tenant of the properties in question in Goa described in para 2 of the writ petition ('the properties'). All these orders were passed by the Mamlatdar under the provisions of Chapter-IIA of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Goa, Daman and Diu Act 7 of 1964) ('Tenancy Act' for the sake of brevity) read with the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967 ('Special Rules' for the sake of brevity) declaring Respondent no.3 as tenant of the properties; (b) œthe consequential impugned orders? permitting Respondent no.3 to sell some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 8 and 9. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 06/11/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court') in Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009. 5. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition, are as follows : Respondents no.8 and 9 had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao ('Trial Court') being Regular Civil Suit No.750/2000/C against the petitioners and respondents no. 1 to 7. The petitioners, as defendants no.3 and 4, filed their written statement and counterclaim. Respondents no.8 and 9 then filed their written statement to the counterclaim and also filed additional written statement. Vide judgment and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
The appeal is filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'ESI Act') against judgment and order of EIC No.3/2004, which was pending before Employees Insurance Court, South Goa, Margao. The application filed by present respondent, business concern under Section 75 of ESI Act to challenge the orders made by present appellant, Corporation on 29/07/1998 and 17/08/2004, which were made to cover the establishment of respondent under ESI Act and to ask the respondent to give the contribution, is allowed by Insurance Court. In the present proceedings both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of appeal can be stated as follows: On 29/06/1998, one Inspector of Insurance Office of the appellant, Corporation visited the office premises of present respondent situated at Pereira Chamber, Vasco-da-Gama and he inspected the record of the employees of the respondent. Accountant of respondent produced the record like wage register, attendance re...
Tag this Judgment!