Court : Mumbai Goa
1. On 25/02/2016, a notice indicating that the matter could be heard finally at the admission stage, was issued in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original defendant nos.13 to 22 before the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.109/2010. The respondent nos.1(a) to 1(f) and respondent no.2 are the original plaintiffs. The respondent no.2 was initially the defendant no.3, who was transposed as plaintiff no.2. Respondent no.3 herein i.e. Canacona Municipal Council is defendant no.1 before the Trial Court. The original defendant no.2 Niki Fernandes has since been deleted. The respondent nos.4 to 12 are the defendant nos.4 to 12 before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original capacity as plaintiffs and defendants. 3. Regular Civil Suit No.109/2010 was filed by now deceased Vishram Kantak against the defendant nos.1 and 2 in which, the defendant nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The appellant-Insurance Company is challenging the judgment and award dated 19.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), only on the ground of the alleged breach of policy condition, in as much as it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license. 2. The brief facts are that on 06.09.2005 at 14:30 hours, the claimant was a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing no. GA-04-A-0219. The accident occurred near the gate of Goa Bagayatdar Cooperative Society at Sanquelim-Bicholim road. When the claimant and the rider of the motor cycle were coming out of the gate, one Tata mobile van bearing no. GA-01-Z-0833 came and dashed the motor cycle, as a result of which, the original claimant sustained injuries, resulting into permanent disability. The respondent no.1-claimant filed a claims petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. The claim petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent no.1, Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.5. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the respondent no.6 was the member of the Conservation Committee who had sat in decision as apparent from the minutes and without disclosing the fact that he had drawn the plan on behalf of the respondent no.5. The permission thus granted had to be revoked as it was affected by bias on the part of the respondent no.6 and since the doctrine of fairness was equally applicable in administrative action. He relied in Minera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI and Mr. A. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The above petition inter alia prays for a writ or direction to the respondents to hand over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for reinvestigation and filing of an appropriate Final Report Form in accordance with law. Further, directions also sought to register the petitioners' complaints dated 16.04.2016, 15.04.2016, 18.04.2016, and 28.04.2016 as FIRs in terms of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that Kamakshi Forex Private Limited is a Private Limited Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The challenge in this petition is to the concurrent finding about the respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the mundkars of a dwelling house no.80 (1) standing in land survey no.30/19 of village Ponda. 2. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The petitioner is the brother of the second respondent, Shalini Rautella. The third respondent Damodar Kapdi (since deceased) was the Bhatkar. The petitioner is represented by his son Pradeep Naik who is his Power of Attorney holder. The first and the second respondent filed an application under section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975 (Mundkar Act, for short) before the Mamlatdar on 8/1/1996 in which now deceased Damodar Kapdi was the sole respondent. Within a week of the filing of this application, Damodar sold the property to the fourth respondent, M/s Sungrace Developers Ltd., who was arrayed as opponent no.3 before the Mamlatdar. The petitioner got himself impleaded in these proceedings as the op...
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. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.3 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25/3/2015 passed by the learned District Judge at Panaji in Civil Suit No.38/B, by which the learned District Judge has refused to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition can be stated thus: The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs, who have filed the aforesaid civil suit for recovery of money and compensation against the petitioners (original defendant nos. 1 to 4) and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 (defendant nos. 5 and 6). The case made out in the plaint is that the respondent no.1 was suffering from Degenerative Aortic Valve Disease and had consulted the petitioner no.2 Dr. Vivek Jawali, Director and Surgeon attached to Fort...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. All these petitions involve a common question about appointment of a commissioner and as such these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who have filed six different suits against the respondents in these petitions. The petitioners are claiming mandatory injunction directing the respondent/s to remove the structures constructed by the respondents in the suit land known as Gorbatta also known as Corpeaband situated at Khadpabandh locality of Ponda aluka bearing survey no.209/0 which is renumbered as survey no.209/1. The respondents/defendants are claiming that the suit structures are falling in land survey no.14 and not survey no.209/1 as claimed by the petitioners. 4. The trial Court has framed issues and the trial has commenced in which PW.1 has entered into the witness box. At this stage the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Korgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 12.04.2007. (1) Whether the plaintiff was entitled for a relief of declaration of sale deed as null and void and for transfer of suit plot in the name of the plaintiff without seeking relief for specific performance of contract? (2) Whether the suit filed on 13.3.1989 for declaring registered sale deed dated 12.6.1975 to which the plaintiff has been a witness was ex facie barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, which concerns with notice of transaction relating to immovable property effected by registered instrument? (3) Whether the pleadings in the plaint at all make out any case of fraud and misrepresentation as defined u...
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!