Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Vivek Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2008, whereby, Civil Suit bearing no. 35 of 2007, filed by the Appellant was partly decreed and the Respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs.24,039/- to the Appellants along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from 19.10.2001 till the date of actual payment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the business of executing construction contracts for the departments of the Appellant no. 1 and its undertakings in the State of Goa and also business of executing the construction contracts of other State Governments in their states and, as such, is a registered Contractor with the Respondent no. 2. According to the Appellants, the Respondent no. 2 for and on behalf of the Respondent no. 3, issued a public tender notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. A complaint was filed by the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji contending that he is the share holder of Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and therefore, concerned for welfare and interest of the bank. He submitted that he noticed a fact that one Mr. Sham Naik, was appointed by the bank on contract basis, although he was a former employee of the bank who had been allowed to take voluntary retirement from the bank. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2005, once an application of an employee seeking his voluntary retirement from the bank is allowed, his association with the bank in any manner is not permissible and in no case, such an employee can be recruited or appointed on contract basis. He submits that the fact that Mr. Naik was appointed by the bank amounted to committing of fraud by the bank as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application, the applicants have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No. 1/2013 thereby directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Applicant No. 1, is a Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore and applicant no. 2 is the Inspector of Central Excise, Goa. Applicant no. 1, was facing an enquiry on the allegation that he together with some other persons during the period of the year 1996-97, colluded with some of the firms and purchased 48 ready flats for Customs Department, Goa at an exorbitant cost of Rs.3,55,69,150/-, which amount was much higher than the actual market rate and thereby committed gross misconduct and caused loss of Rs.1,04,00,000/- to the Department. Because of pendency of this enquiry, applicant no. 1 faced some difficul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application, the applicants have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No. 1/2013 thereby directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Applicant No. 1, is a Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore and applicant no. 2 is the Inspector of Central Excise, Goa. Applicant no. 1, was facing an enquiry on the allegation that he together with some other persons during the period of the year 1996-97, colluded with some of the firms and purchased 48 ready flats for Customs Department, Goa at an exorbitant cost of Rs.3,55,69,150/-, which amount was much higher than the actual market rate and thereby committed gross misconduct and caused loss of Rs.1,04,00,000/- to the Department. Because of pendency of this enquiry, applicant no. 1 faced some difficul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. Admit. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for applicants and learned P.P. 3. This is a Revision Application questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 07/09/2015 passed by Special Judge, South Goa, Margao in Special Case (SC/ST) No.4/2014 thereby directing framing of charge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 504, 506(ii), 509 and 394 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3(1)(ii),(iv) and (x) and 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for the sake of convenience.). 4. I have heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the impugned order, the complaint filed against the applicants and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. M. Singbal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ to quash and set aside the Order dated 29.01.2009, passe by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the Respondent no. 2 herein. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as contended by the Petitioner are that the Petitioners are 100% EOU and are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacturer of zinc oxide which is mainly used in the tyre and paint industry and for that purpose, they have a factory at Plot no. 23, GDDIDC, Phase-III-A, Sancoale Industrial Estate, Zuarinagar, Goa. It is further their case that zinc oxide is covered under serial no. 28.06 of the draw back schedule notified under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The rate of drawback is notified under Notification no. 26/2003-Cus (NT) dated 01.04.2005 under A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges two judgments and orders, one dated 30/5/2015 and the other dated 23/2/2012. Both these judgments and orders have been delivered in Criminal Revision applications filed against the orders impugned therein. Now, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge in this writ petition to the judgment and order dated 30/5/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no.127/2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. 3. After grant of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, the petitioner raised a challenge and pleaded for modification of the order of maintenance by filing another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a change in the circumstances. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 8/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges two judgments and orders, one dated 30/5/2015 and the other dated 23/2/2012. Both these judgments and orders have been delivered in Criminal Revision applications filed against the orders impugned therein. Now, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge in this writ petition to the judgment and order dated 30/5/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no.127/2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. 3. After grant of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, the petitioner raised a challenge and pleaded for modification of the order of maintenance by filing another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a change in the circumstances. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 8/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent. 3. Heard finally, by consent. 4. This Revision Application challenges the order dated 18/06/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby directing framing of charge against the revision applicant and his co-accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant. He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent. 3. Heard finally, by consent. 4. This Revision Application challenges the order dated 18/06/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby directing framing of charge against the revision applicant and his co-accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant. He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P....
Tag this Judgment!