Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties both the writ petitions are taken for final hearing and disposed at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appointed by this Court to assist the Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2013. Also heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.G. Dessai in Writ Petition No.101/2013, representing the writ petitioner, the original accused. Also heard Prosecutors representing the State in both the writ petitions. 3. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the Writ Petition No.1/2013 is a Suo Motu Writ Petition taken up by this Court by giving suitable directions vide order dated 24/01/2013 (Coram : F.M. Reis, J.). Said directions were given in two proceedings filed before this Court, one being Criminal Revision Application No.49/2012 and another one being Criminal Writ Petition No.9/2013. In both these proceedings filed by the private individuals, not concerned with the matter, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/11/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.102/06/D/C acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the appeal are as under: On 19/10/2005 at about 13.10 hours at Zuari, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17, the accused drove his Maruti Van bearing registration no.GA01-T-6603 in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Margao to Panaji and when he reached near Zuari bridge, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17 while attempting to overtake another vehicle, dashed against motorcycle bearing registration no.GA02-H-4458 driven by PW2 - Dipesh Shah causing grievous injuries to him. Both the accused and PW2 sustained injuries and they were taken to Goa Medical Coll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/11/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.102/06/D/C acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the appeal are as under: On 19/10/2005 at about 13.10 hours at Zuari, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17, the accused drove his Maruti Van bearing registration no.GA01-T-6603 in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Margao to Panaji and when he reached near Zuari bridge, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17 while attempting to overtake another vehicle, dashed against motorcycle bearing registration no.GA02-H-4458 driven by PW2 - Dipesh Shah causing grievous injuries to him. Both the accused and PW2 sustained injuries and they were taken to Goa Medical Coll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. R. Menezes, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28/07/2010 passed by the Children's Court in Special Case No.22/2009 convicting and sentencing the appellant/ accused of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506(ii) and 354 of I.P.C. read with Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short) as follows: SectionSentence452 of IPCSimple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default, Simple Imprisonment for one month.354 r/w S.8(2) of the ActSimple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 Lakh. In default, Simple Imprisonment for three months.506(ii) of IPCSimple Imprisonment for three months.An amount of Rs.50,000/- from the fine amount, if realised, has been ordered to be paid to the victim girl. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. D. Lawande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant and Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'). 2. By this appeal, the appellant-State takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 16th September, 2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ponda, Goa in Criminal Case No. 97/S/06/A, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under: On 14th February, 2006, at about 11.20 a.m. at Manaswado, Kundai on National Highway 4, the accused drove the tanker bearing registration No. GA-01, Z-2715 in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Ponda to Panaji and dashed against the mini bus bearing registration No.GA-02, T-4634 which was driven by PW.2 Mohan Naik. On account of the accident, simple injuries were caused to PW.2 Mohan Naik and five other passengers travelling in the mini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the leaned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in Bank Matter No.81/2007/A. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for excluding certain part of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and raising objection as to the admissibility of a portion, thereof has been rejected, as being premature. The learned trial Court has kept the substantive contentions open, to be raised at the time of final arguments. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for recovery of money, by way of refund and compensation. On behalf of the petitioner, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge at Panaji, to entertain the suit. This is basically on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 9/06/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Eviction Appeal No.236/2000. By the impugned judgment the Administrative Tribunal, has set aside the order dated 28/09/2000 passed by the additional Rent Controller, Margao and the petitioners are directed to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the respondent filed eviction proceedings against now deceased Sitaram Naik for eviction from the suit shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from June 1979 till the filing of the application i.e. 10/07/1980. 3. It appears that within thirty days of the service of the summons, the petitioners deposited the entire arrears of the rent on 10/07/1980. The petitioners also filed a written statement on 31/07/1980 contesting the application. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions the learned Rent Controll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. Admit. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for applicants and learned P.P. 3. This is a Revision Application questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 07/09/2015 passed by Special Judge, South Goa, Margao in Special Case (SC/ST) No.4/2014 thereby directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 504, 506(ii), 509 and 394 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3(1)(ii),(iv) and (x) and 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for the sake of convenience.). 4. I have heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the impugned order, the complaint filed against the applicants and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Whether a Civil Revision Application would lie under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, (the Act, for short) against an order passed by the Director of Panchayats, under Section 66(7) of the said Act, in view of the finality, which is attached to the said order, is the question, which falls for determination in this case. 2. The aforesaid issue arises in the following facts: The petitioner had applied for a licence for construction of a Beach Resort at village Arossim, on the basis of technical clearance granted on 25/06/2014. That application was made to the first respondent Village Panchayat. The petitioner had also submitted a CRZ clearance dated 11/04/2013 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India. The first respondent, by a communication dated 16/10/2014, returned the proposal for the reason that the built up area of the proposed construction being in excess of 20000 square metres, requires prior environmental clearance under the Env...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 9/2006. 3. The appellant was the respondent no. 3-insurance company; the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants and respondents no. 4, 5 were respondents no. 1 and 2 who were respectively the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The claimants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the claimant no. 1 and the father of the claimants no. 2 and 3. 5. Case of the claimants, in short, was as follows:- The husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 and 3, namely, Arvind Poll, ag...
Tag this Judgment!