Court : Mumbai Goa
..... body of individuals, who or which- (a) carries on business of money-lending in the state; or does any activity of lending of any finance; (b) has his or its principal place of such business in the state, and includes a pawnbroker but does not include - (i) government, (ii) a local authority, (iii) a bank, (iv) the agricultural refinance corporation constituted under the agricultural refinance (and development) corporation act, 1963 (central act 10 of 1963) or (v) any other ..... fund, established for the welfare or assistance of government servants, and which is sanctioned by the government; (v) a loan advanced by a co-operative society; (vi) an advance made to a subscriber to, or a depositor, in a provident fund, from the amount standing to his credit in the fund in accordance with the rules of the fund; (vii) a loan to or by an insurance company as defined in the insurance act, 1938 (central act 4 of 1938); (viii) a loan advanced to, or by a bank; (ix) a loan to, or by, or deposit with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
..... body of individuals, who or which- (a) carries on business of money-lending in the state; or does any activity of lending of any finance; (b) has his or its principal place of such business in the state, and includes a pawnbroker but does not include - (i) government, (ii) a local authority, (iii) a bank, (iv) the agricultural refinance corporation constituted under the agricultural refinance (and development) corporation act, 1963 (central act 10 of 1963) or (v) any other ..... fund, established for the welfare or assistance of government servants, and which is sanctioned by the government; (v) a loan advanced by a co-operative society; (vi) an advance made to a subscriber to, or a depositor, in a provident fund, from the amount standing to his credit in the fund in accordance with the rules of the fund; (vii) a loan to or by an insurance company as defined in the insurance act, 1938 (central act 4 of 1938); (viii) a loan advanced to, or by a bank; (ix) a loan to, or by, or deposit with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, Fast Track at Panaji in Civil Suit No.304/2004 on 30/7/2008, by which the civil suit filed by the original plaintiffs is partly decreed and it is declared that the Deed of Mortgage dated 4/2/1991 executed by the original defendants no.1,2,6 and 7 and the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Panaji, in Case no. ABN/DRCS/31/95 on 26/12/1995 and the auction proceedings dated 2/4/1998 and the Certificate of Sale dated 29/10/1998 are null and void abi-initio. By the impugned Judgment and Decree it is directed that the Sub Registrar of Registration should cancel the registration of the Deed of Mortgage dated 4/2/1991. This appeal is filed by (i) The Chief Executive Officer, Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and (ii) the Branch Manager, Goa State Co- operative Bank Ltd., who were the original defendants no.6 and 7. 2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
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
Oral Judgment: ( Per F. M. Reis, J) 1. Heard Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. Both the appeals have been taken up together for final disposal as both challenge the same judgment and award dated 20.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji Goa. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appeared in the cause title of the impugned award. 5. The above appeals challenge the judgment and award dated 20.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 44/2009 whereby a reference preferred by the applicant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the said Act?) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all the affidavits are filed, pleadings are complete, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2} This writ petition together with other petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are, therefore, disposed off by this common judgment. 3} The State of Goa has initiated proceedings for Acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the construction of the New International Airport at Mopa in Pernem Taluka. 4} The Notification and Declaration in that behalf was issued on 25th July 2008 and 28th July 2009, respectively, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the L.A Act”) and under section 6 of the L.A Act. Both are impugned on various grounds to which we will advert a little later. 5} The petitioners claim to be owners/tenants of the properties indicated against their names/ the names of their ancestors i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
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
Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal of respondent no.5 above-named, vide judgment and order dated 19/04/2010, passed in Criminal Case No. 192/N/96/F/III. 3. For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Magistrate. 4. The State, through the Drugs Inspector namely Ms. Jyoti Sardessai, had lodged the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Margao against five accused persons for contravention of the provision of Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act', for short), which came to be registered as Criminal case No. 192/N/96/III. 5. The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows: The accused no.1 is a Partnership Firm having manufacturing premises at Shirali, Uttar Kannada and is engaged in drug manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
The confirmation case and all the above criminal appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since they arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 15/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them as below :Accused No.Name of the accusedSentences imposed on the accused1.Ryan FernandesDeath penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and if recovered, the same shall be paid to PW.54 Sarika and PW.57 Jaimini and other daughter as compensation in accordance with Section 357, Cr.P.C.;Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC; Death penalty for the offence under Section 120 B, IPC and to pay a fine...
Tag this Judgment!