Court : Mumbai Goa
..... from the house of the third accused, during a search on 15/11/2010. in such circumstances, the respondent and two others were put on trial for the offences punishable under sections 39(1)(d) and 39(3)(a) of the wild life (protection) act 1972 (act of 1972, for short) read with section 27, sections 52 and 51 of the act of 1972. 5. it appears that during the course of the recording of the examination of pw2- prabhudessai, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the confessional statement recorded by the deputy range forest officer would not be admissible in evidence .....
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
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel and at their request to hear finally. 3. Mr. Noel Dias Sapeco, learned counsel for the respondent waives service. 4. The above Writ Petition inter-alia seeks to quash and set aside an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, dated 31.01.2014 in Matrimonial Petition No.59/2013 whereby an application for interim custody filed by the respondent came to be allowed and the respondent who is the mother was given interim custody of the male child with visitation rights to the petitioner herein. 5. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions, the brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner and the respondent were married in U.S.A. and out of their wedlock a child was born o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. By this appeal, the appellants- original plaintiffs are challenging the judgment and order dated 20/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No.68/2003, thereby confirming the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.31/01/III by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao. 2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the following substantial questions of law arise in the appeal: (i) Whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaring the orders passed by the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (the said Act) as null and void? (ii) Whether Section 31(2) of the said Act would bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit, seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar (or other authorities under the said Act) be declared as null and void? 3. The parties were put to notice about the aforesaid substantial questions of law. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan D.Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri S.G.Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended on inviting attention to the FIR that Section 341 IPC alone was a cognizable offence unlike the other offences being non-cognizable in nature. The complaint did not at all disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and therefore it was a fit case to quash and set aside the FIR No.62/2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. He placed reliance in Shripad Kulkarni and others Vs. State of Goa and another [Criminal Writ Petition No.80/2013] and Joao C.Pereira and another Vs. State of Goa and others [CDJ 2016 BHC 607] to substantiate his case. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 contended that the investigation revealed that the CC TV footage to which a reference was made in the complaint did not give any details except the arrival of the car in question. The inmates of the house too were not forthcomi...
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. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent, hearth forthwith. 4. The petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 16/11/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 244/2010/FTC-I whereby, the application for leave to lead secondary evidence came to be rejected. 5. The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly stated as under : The petitioner had filed a Special Civil Suit No. 02/2002/A before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao (Trial Court, for short) for recovery of money and other consequential reliefs. Inter alia, it was urged in the plaint that on 08/03/2000, the respondent had hired an excavator machine belonging to the petitioner to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 vide orders dated 31.7.08, 31.7.08 and 4.6.2008, respectively to the post of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools run by respondent No.3 Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while making appointments of respondents No.4 to 7, the name of petitioner was not considered for promotion as required under Rule 74 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (the Rules for short) framed under the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (the Act for short). It is further the case of the petitioner that all the said appointments have been made in breach of Rule 86, read with Rule 78 of the Rules inasmuch as all the four respondents are not only junior to the petitioner, but also not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appointments of the said respondents w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 vide orders dated 31.7.08, 31.7.08 and 4.6.2008, respectively to the post of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools run by respondent No.3 Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while making appointments of respondents No.4 to 7, the name of petitioner was not considered for promotion as required under Rule 74 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (“the Rules” for short) framed under the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (“the Act” for short). It is further the case of the petitioner that all the said appointments have been made in breach of Rule 86, read with Rule 78 of the Rules inasmuch as all the four respondents are not only junior to the petitioner, but also not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 07/04/2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji (Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.66 of 2011 and has prayed to quash and set aside the same and to restore the order dated 30/04/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji (Trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.80/2009/A. 3. By order dated 13/06/2012, Rule was issued in the matter and it was directed that interim custody of the child which was already with the petitioner would continue to remain with her until the final disposal of the petition. 4. The petitioner and respondent were married in Goa on 08/05/2007 and the marriage was registered before the Civil Registrar of Ilhas under Registration No.424/2007. Out of the said we...
Tag this Judgment!