Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. Both the learned counsel point out that the legal proposition involved in both the above petitions are identical and as such they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 5. The above petitions inter-alia pray for quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings starting with the suspension of the petitioners, the subsequent service of the charge sheet against the petitioners, the proceedings of the inquiry officer, the inquiry report, the show cause notice issued to the petitioners and the office order dated 02.05.2015 dismissing the petitioners from the services. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by orders dated 07.07.2010 and 21.08.2010, it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (K.L. Wadane, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A. Kudtarkar, 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. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet bearing No.32/2013 in Criminal Case No.IPC/140/2013/B pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji. 5. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 29.3.2013 at about 19.30 hours, within the jurisdiction of respondent no.2, the petitioner drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and when the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 rendered in Criminal Case No. 1/C/2005/A passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: On 14.07.2003 at about 14:00 hours when the respondent accompanied by two ladies namely, Smt. Shobha Khira and Ms. Tina Khira had checked in to board Indian Airlines Flight to Sharjah, officers of the appellant having received prior information intercepted the respondent and the two ladies accompanying him in order to find out if they were carrying with them any goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 135(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Upon interrogation, it was noticed that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. At the outset, at the request of Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent no.5 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 5. The above petition inter-alia takes exception to the non implementation of the order dated 18.01.2016 whereby the electric connection released to the petitioner in terms of Section 94-A of the Public Health Act was not complied with. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and during the course of the hearing Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. It is seen from the impugned orders that both the authorities below have not read the report of the Range Forest Officer in ts correct perspective. His report dated 30/10/2014 nowhere states that the condition of the tree is ruinous or such as to indicate that it is likely to fall down. Report only states that because some electric lines are passing from below the tree, it may be dangerous to life and property. Report suggests that passing of electric lines from below the tree is the reason for making threat to life and property. It is clear that the tree by itself is not in dangerous or ruinous condition. The requirement of exercise of power under section 12-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 is that the tree in question must be in a ruinous state or its branches should be in a ruinous state or the tree should be in such a condition that it is likely to fall and ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Mr. S. D. Padiyar learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 5. This appeal challenges the order dated 9.10.2015 passed under Order 39 of the CPC by the District Judge-II at Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No. 127/2014. 6. Brief facts of the may be stated as follows:- In the year 1904, an open land admeasuring 21.96 square metres was allotted to the father of the Shri Namdev F. Tendulkar, namely Shri Fondu Rahgunath Tendulkar by the then local body i.e. Camara Municipal de Bardez under Portuguese Decree No. 43525. Shri Fondu R. Tendulkar was running a hair cutting saloon during his lifetime and regularly paying ground rent to the municipalities. After the death of Fondu Tendulkar in the year 1953, suit shop was run by his el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the respondents to release retirement dues to the petitioner including pension and gratuity along with 8% interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was practising advocate since 1979. The petitioner practised as an advocate till he was appointed as the President of Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was appointed as the President of Goa Administrative Tribunal by order dated 24.10.2001 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 08.11.2011. 3. The appointment order of the petitioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 315/2001 on the ground that State did not consult the High Court before appointing the petitioner as the President. This Court by its Judgment dated 19.9.2002 set aside the appointment order dated 24.10.2001. 4. The petitioner states that thereafter the Government referred the proposal of appointment of the petitioner to the Hon'ble Chief Justi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 15/07/2015 passed by Principal District Judge, South Goa, whereby, by invoking power under Section 32(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short), the proceedings of Rent Appeal No.35/2013 have been directed to be stopped with a further direction to the petitioners to put the respondents in possession of the suit premises. 3. Petitioner no.2, according to the respondents, is their tenant and petitioner no.1 has been inducted as subtenant by petitioner no.2 without any permission from the respondents. The respondents, therefore, launched eviction proceedings against both the petitioners and during the pendency of these proceedings, an application under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act came to be filed by the respondents contending that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a joint application filed by the petitioner, who was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C., and the victims of crime, for compounding of the offences, was not completely granted and that the Appellate Court allowed the compounding of the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and refused to grant permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. on the ground that this offence is non-compoundable under the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on legal grounds, the order cannot be said to be absolutely erroneous as under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. is not compoundable. But, now the law is clear and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; 2012...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. Learned counsel for the revision applicant has assailed the impugned judgment and order on two grounds (a) the investigation could not have been carried out without sanction of the concerned magistrate as the offence punishable under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act is non cognizable and (b) secondly, no reliance could have been placed upon the breathe test report, the same being not admissible in evidence. 3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application submitting that both these challenges have been extensively dealt with by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order and neither any illegality and/or incorrectness and/or impropriety could be found in impugned order and therefore, this is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned judgment and order. 4. On going through the impugned judgment and order, I find substance in the argument of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the St...
Tag this Judgment!