Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This revision application challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vasco on 02.11.2015 in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2014/A, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint. A suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, claiming that under the contract given by the petitioner to the respondent for carrying out repairs to vessels, different bills were raised upon the petitioner claiming various amounts from the petitioner. These bills have been given in details in paragraph 4 of the plaint. According to the respondent, the total amount of these bills is Rs.22,08,196/- against which, the respondent admits that he has received the payment of Rs.9,94,619/- from the petitioner. The respondent claims that as the remaining amount is still outstanding, the respondent has fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent. 3. This Writ Petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 16/10/2014, passed by the Additional Collector-II, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 (Mamlatdar's Court Act, for short), directing the petitioner to remove obstructions from the right of way claimed by the respondent no.2, preferred a Revision Application in terms of Section 22 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act. The Revision Application, in terms of subsection (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 22, ordinarily, has to be preferred before the Collector, who has been invested with revisional powers. However, under subsection (3), a power has been conferred upon the Government to authorise, by notification in off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. This petition challenges the order dated 7/7/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge "A' Court, Ponda in Special Civil Suit no.22/2007/A thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit for grant of permission to produce the additional documents on record. 4. The suit that has been filed by the respondents against the petitioners, claims refund of advance of Rs.30.00 lakhs together with interest and other sums of money from the petitioners. The petitioners have resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The petitioner no.1 is a company and on its behalf one Shri K. Mohan, son of Kala Bhairava entered the witness box as the first witness of the petitioners. During the cross examination of this witness, it transpired that he had not produced on record ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4/9/2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, Court of the District Judge-1, Panaji, which is a common order rendered in Misc. Civil Appeal No.92/2014 and Misc. Civil Appeal No.93/2014. 5. By this common order, the first Appellate Court dismissed Misc. Civil Appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.92/2014 and allowed another appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.93/2014. These appeals were filed against the common order dated 31/7/2014, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.56/2014/C by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji Goa, thereby rejecting the application of the respondents no.1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction and also their application for appointment of Court receiver. 6. The respondents no.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for partition against the petitioners, the original defendants no.1 and 2 and several other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa Goa, by which the petitioners are disqualified for a period of 5 years from the date of the order. 2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The petitioners were the members of the Board of Directors of M/s Sapana Garden Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. M/s Sapana Garden Co-operative Housing Society Ltd is a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd registered under Goa Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 2011( the Act? for short). The Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the society consist of 9 members. The new Board of Directors of the said Society was elected on 4.6.2014 and the petitioners are amongst 9 elected members. They were also members of the Board of Directors of previous committee. 3. The members of the Board of Directors of the society have their own businesses and professions and they are performing their duties as the memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Defendants. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed by the original Plaintiffs challenging the Order passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1 (FTC) North Goa, Panaji, in Misc. Civil Appeal no, 46 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015, by which the Appeal of the Plaintiffs against the Order of rejection of the temporary injunction application filed by the learned Trial Court is dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case as stated are as follows: The parties are referred to as their original status. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Mumbai and Goa. The Plaintiff urther pleaded that to expand its business, the property belonging to the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Kalangutkar, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 164/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, "C" Court Mapusa. According to the petitioner, who appears in person, the order impugned reflects complete non-application of mind to the facts of the case by the learned Magistrate and is founded upon unsustainable grounds. The petitioner further submits that only two reasons have been stated by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the complaint filed by him for initiating action in accordance with section 340 of Cr.P.C for filing of complaint against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 193, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia prays for a writ of mandamus or direction to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 07.09.2007 and 23.09.2009 and also a direction to the respondent no.1 to grant regularisation with effect from the initial date of appointment and for other consequential benefits. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner successfully completed three years of diploma course in Handloom Technology on 30.07.1979 and was appointed as a Master Craftsmen by the respondent no.2 on 12.09.1979. The sanction was granted by the respondent no.1 for creating the post of Master Craftsman, Technical Assistant ( Design ) for the development of the Handloom industry on 21.10.1980. The petitioner and the others had filed a Writ Petition No. 79/1990 before this Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking parity in pay scale, with her counterpart in a Government Higher Secondary School. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal, in the People's Higher Secondary School, Panaji (respondent no. 3) on 22.11.2000 in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500. The appointment of the petitioner was eventually approved by the respondent no. 1. The material dispute pertains to two circulars issued by the respondent no. 1 dated 28.05.1998 and 31.03.1999. It appears that by the circular dated 28.05.1998, it was stipulated that the post of Principal in the Higher Secondary School having a total student enrollment between 120 and 300 shall carry a pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500. By a subsequent circular dated 31.03.1999, it was clarified that in case of marginally higher strength of students i.e. upto 350 students, the post of Principal will carry the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200, with a rider that the said p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Whether a Civil Revision Application would lie under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, (the Act, for short) against an order passed by the Director of Panchayats, under Section 66(7) of the said Act, in view of the finality, which is attached to the said order, is the question, which falls for determination in this case. 2. The aforesaid issue arises in the following facts: The petitioner had applied for a licence for construction of a Beach Resort at village Arossim, on the basis of technical clearance granted on 25/06/2014. That application was made to the first respondent Village Panchayat. The petitioner had also submitted a CRZ clearance dated 11/04/2013 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India. The first respondent, by a communication dated 16/10/2014, returned the proposal for the reason that the built up area of the proposed construction being in excess of 20000 square metres, requires prior environmental clearance under the Env...
Tag this Judgment!