Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Mr. Agni, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner had filed Matrimonial Petition No.17/2013/B before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, Goa, against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. It appears that the said petition was dismissed in default on 31.10.2013. The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.72/2013/B, for restoration of the petition under Order 9 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Court framed two points, namely, (1) whether the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for not appearing before the Court on 31.10.2013 and (2) whether the application is barred by limitation. 3. Insofar as the first point is concerned, the learned trial Court has answered the same in the affirmative. However, on the second question, the learned trial Court found that the application was not filed within the period of limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. The learned counsel waives service for respondents no.1 to 14 and the learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for respondents no.15 and 16. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The respondent nos.1 to 14 have filed civil suit no. (old 71/2012) which is pending on the file of the learned District Judge-II at Panaji. That suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. A perusal of the prayer clause 21 of the plaint would show that the respondent nos.1 to 14 are seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from transferring, selling, alienating the suit property and further restraining the defendant and his agent, family, relatives or any person or persons from interfering in any manner in the suit property. The respondent nos.1 to 14 are also seeking a direction to the city survey department to restore the name of Gangabai Vassudeo Korgaonkar in the property card of the suit property. 3. It appears that the petitioner/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Although the dispute between the parties has a chequered history, the present writ petition can be disposed of on a short count. 2. The dispute pertains to the management and control over a Devasthan. 3. On the basis of a report by Cuncolim Police Station proceedings under section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short) were initiated on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Quepem in which the petitioners are members of party no.1, while respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(g) are the members of party no.2 before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. It appears that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C. recording the subjective satisfaction about the dispute between the parties being likely to cause a breach of peace. Accordingly, the parties were noticed. It further appears that on 11/2/2011, both the contesting parties filed their respective statements. It was also pointed out that some o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. P. Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 19/08/2005 on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Court ought to have seen that in the absence of record of Land Registration document, document of matriz, though is a document prepared in connection with collection of revenue, could not be brushed aside because it was the only document in existence even prior to coming into force of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 under which the Survey of Record of Rights was conducted? 2. Whether the Courts below were right in discarding the record of cadastral survey, in which the name of the predecessor in title of the vendors of the appellants was admittedly recorded and proved so, on the ground that the document of survey does not constitute document of title, but at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri J. E. Coelho, Pereira, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Shri E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2014 passed in Special Civil Suit no. 4/2013 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Vasco da Gama, whereby the suit filed by the Appellants was partly decreed and the Respondents were directed to pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.10,89,000/- as arrears of payment of rent for the period from May 2012 to July 2012 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 31.07.2012 to the date of the payment. The Respondents were also directed to pay to the Appellants a further sum of Rs,.93,678/- as arrears of rent from 01.08.20125 to 08.08.2012 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 31.08.2012 till the date till the date of payment. The Respondents were also directed to pay the arrears of the electricity charges till the date of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Shri Kantak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent o. 1 and Mr. Mody, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ of mandamus or any ther writ commanding the Respondent no. 1 to quash and set aside LOA dated 30.09.2015 issued in favour of Respondent no. 2 and also to consider the bid of the Petitioner and to open the price bid in respect of the tender NCAOR/BGRLKOYNA3km/01/2015. 4. Briefly, the case as stated by the Petitioner is that the Respondent no. 1 published a notice inviting tender for drilling one vertical, 3000 m deep borehole for scientific investigations in the Koyna Region, Maharashtra, bearing no. NCAOR/BGRL-KOYNA3km/01/2015. The Petitioner being interested ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 9 and Mr. Kansar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 4 to 8. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside the Order dated 11.11.2014 of the Respondent no. 2 as well as the decision of the Under Secretary (Revenue) i.e. Respondent no. 9 in the letter dated 03.11.2014 and also the Order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Respondent no. 2. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that handbills were issued somewhere in the year 2013 in the name of Shri Devi Sateri Jirnoddar Samiti in the Village of Ibrampur. It is further the case of the Petitioner that in September, 2013, the Petitioners were shocked to learn that the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 were planning to demolish the existing temple. Being dissatisfied with the action of the Managing Committee to bring do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (K. L. Wadane, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent no. 3. 4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 19/2014 dated 8.8.2014. 5. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is a co-owner in possession of a property, bearing survey no. 67/0 known as TARIPANTO situated at village Sanquem (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ). The suit property corresponds to new survey nos.60/1, 64/1, 67/0 and 68. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant/Original Complainant is taking exception to the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2012, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco da Gama, in Criminal Case No.94/OA/NIA/2011/C by which the Respondent-Accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ('Act', for short). 2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the Appellant that on account of friendship, the Appellant had accommodated the Respondent in the sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. In the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, the Appellant has set out the details of the payment which were made to the Respondent from time to time from December 2010 to May 2011. The Appellant further claimed that towards repayment of the said amount, the Respondent had issued a cheque bearing No.231641 dated 15.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- in favour of the Appellant. The said cheque was drawn on Centurion Bank Ltd., Vasco da Ga...
Tag this Judgment!