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. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim orders dated 04/10/2012 and 05/10/2012, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa (Trial Court), in Matrimonial Petition No.20/2009. 3. The petitioner and the respondent are Hindus by religion. They got married to each other on 17/04/1998 according to Hindu Customary Right, in Agra, Uttar Pradesh and the marriage was thereafter registered before the Sub- Registrar at Mapusa on 29/06/1998 under Registration No.664/98. They have two minor daughters from the wedlock, namely Khushi born on 14/02/2001 and Saachi born on 27/03/2004. The petitioner, on or about 24/03/2009, has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner, being Matrimonial Case No.20/2009, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act, for short), which is pending. Initially...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. P. S. Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco da Gama in Criminal Case no. 551/NIA/2008/D by which respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the original complainant. The complainant filed the above case through power of attorney holder Shri Prakash Sutar alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. According to the complainant, the accused had engaged services of the complainant for transporting iron ore since 2006 from M/s. Zeenath Transport Company Mines, Hospet to M/s. Sesa Industries Limited, Goa and while returning the complainant was transporting Met-coke for the accused from Mormugao Port Trust Harbour, V...
Tag this Judgment!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
1. This is a suit for injunction and damages, in which the defendant has lodged a counter claim. 2. The plaintiff s case is as under: The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is inter-alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy, whisky and other alcoholic beverages. The defendant is also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy and other alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff had applied to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, for registration of a design for their bottle. The same was granted on 11.08.2000, as design no. 183202 dated 11.08.2000, which is a Class-IV registration (the said design, for short). The said design was registered under the Designs Act, 1911 (the old Act, for short). The Designs Act, 2000 (the Act of 2000, for short) came into force on 11.05.2001. As per Section 48(2) of the Act of 2000, any registration certifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
The petitioner herein is a student of respondent no.2, college for the stream of Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A.). He is also a sportsman and has represented respondent no.2 in inter-collegiate Table Tennis Tournament. Respondent no.2 is affiliated to respondent no.1, Goa University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the first semester of B.C.A. and cleared all the papers except the paper of Computer Organization and Reconstruction. In that subject he failed to secure the grade for passing i.e. grade "D". He has been awarded grade "F" which is for failure. He therefore applied for verification of his marksheet and learnt that he had secured 34 marks in the subject. The minimum marks required for passing being 40 the petitioner had failed by 6 marks. 3. Admittedly, having represented respondent no.2 in inter-collegiate tournaments the petitioner is entitled to receive 10 marks called "Entitlement Marks". The dispute raised in the present petition is about the mode or manner of all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Narvekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23/04/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao (Appellate Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16/2013 and also the order dated 30/10/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem (Trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9/2012/A. 4. The petitioners were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.64/2009/A. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Civil Suit. 5. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit portion situated in 'Chodnekar Building' at Bepquegal, Churchorem, Goa; for mesne profits and for payment of arre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Both the Petitions were taken up together as both the learned Counsel pointed out that the facts in both the Petitions were identical in respect of Assessment year 2006-2007. 3. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ of certoriari or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 17.12.2009 of the Respondent and allow the application dated 06.04.2009 filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of one day. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed its return of income in Form 1 in hard copy with the office of the Respondent on 31.03.2008 as the return of Income was not uploaded in the electronic form on to the server of the Income Tax Department. The server of the Respondent uploaded the return of Income on 01.04.2005 electronically. This return of Income was in fact the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, only on the challenge to the impugned order dated 18/8/2011. 2. Amongst other prayers, in this Criminal Revision application, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 18/8/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.33/2011. 3. In Criminal Case No.127/OA/138/2009/C, the applicant was the accused and he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (One lakh thirty thousand only) to the complainant within forty days and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 4. Against the said judgment and order of conviction, the applicant had presented an appeal before the Sessions Judge and since there was a delay of abo...
Tag this Judgment!