Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the petitions. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. In both these petitions the challenge is to the order dated 4/3/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim in Regular Civil Suit No.200/2015. As such, the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2 a. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petitions may be stated thus. That on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Bhupendrasinh N. Rajebhonsale, who is the Attorney of the petitioner in W.P. No.431/2016 the Village Panchayat of Maulingem had issued a stop work notice to one Mr. Audumber @ Audhut G. Mandrekar. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Panchayats, assumed powers under section 66 (5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act for short) and issued a notice of demolition to Audhut Mandrekar on 14/2/2013 in respect of the house standing in survey no.99 of village Maulingem. It appears that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C, for short) is to the judgment and order dated 30/10/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application no.113/2013. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus- The petitioner is based at Delhi and is engaged in the import and is a trader of optical lenses and blanks and inter alia amongst other places, has an office at Goa. The respondent no.2, M/s. G.K. Hitec Lenses Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act. There were business transactions between the petitioner and the second respondent since 1991 in which the petitioner had been supplying optical lenses and blanks to the second respondent. 4. The second respondent has filed a complaint against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, is to the communication dated 20/03/2015, whereunder, the respondent has refused to lift the abeyance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) in respect of the Title Concession (TC No.65/51) Pola Dongor Iron and Manganese Ore of the petitioner, on the ground that a part of the mining area, is a forest land. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus: That on 18/07/2007, the respondent had granted environmental clearance to the petitioner's Mining Lease (TC No.65/51) under EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006. On 12/07/2010, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa vide their letter dated 12/07/2010, informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the State Government has approved the proposal to process the case, for obtaining the clearance under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for setting aside the Order passed by the Goa Legislative Secretariat dated 19.07.2011 promoting the Respondent no. 3 to the post of Assistant and further quashing and setting aside the demotion of the Petitioner from the post of Assistant by Order dated 19.07.2011. 3. Briefly, the case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner offered her candidature for the post of Junior Assistant specifically reserved for Scheduled Caste only which was published in the local news paper. Thereafter, the Petitioner was appointed to the post on 28.08.2000 as Junior Assistant along with several other Officers. The Petitioner was subsequently confirmed to the post of Junior Assistant on 22.08.2003 and subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect and examine the records of the Goa Meat Complex to look into its affairs and submit a report within a time bound framed. It further seeks a direction to the Respondents to stop forthwith slaughtering all animals present within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex and further to stop forthwith any cow and bull slaughter in the Goa Meat Complex. It also seeks a direction to the Goa Meat Complex to handover the animals, cows, bulls and calves presently within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex to the Petitioners. It further prays to direct the police and the said authorities to initiate proceedings against the offenders including against the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. It further seeks a direction to ensure strict compliance and any implementation of the Goa Daman and Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and The Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995. 2. By an Order dated 22.04.2013,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the leaned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in Bank Matter No.81/2007/A. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for excluding certain part of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and raising objection as to the admissibility of a portion, thereof has been rejected, as being premature. The learned trial Court has kept the substantive contentions open, to be raised at the time of final arguments. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for recovery of money, by way of refund and compensation. On behalf of the petitioner, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge at Panaji, to entertain the suit. This is basically on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition inter-alia seeks a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 32(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1969 is ultra vires the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 as extended and applicable in the State of Goa and is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that it be declared that the Copra is not a notified Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (herein after referred to as "the Act of 1963"). It is also prayed that it be declared that the first petitioner is neither a trader nor a processor and is not required to obtain a licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition, at the instance of the Legal Representatives of the original defendant no.1, is to two orders both dated 26/07/2010 below Exh.77 and Exh. 79, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in RCS No.153/2000. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent nos.1(a) to 1(g) and respondent no.2 have filed the aforesaid suit, in which the defendant nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 were proceeded ex-parte. The defendant no.5 is the widow of defendant no.4- Deu Raut. Defendant no.4 died during the pendency of the suit on 18/05/2008. It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs initially filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short), seeking exemption from bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.4 on record, on the ground that the said defendant was already proceeded ex-parte. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 04/02/2009. 3. The learned Counsel for the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. This is an appeal by the original claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 11/12/2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao ( the Tribunal for the short) by which the learned Presiding Officer secured her partly with the compensation and without appreciating her case in its proper context. The respondents are the original respondents before the tribunal and all of whom would be referred to in their original status for the brevity's sake hereinafter. It needs reckoning that no separate appeal or cross appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 in particular challenging the award and therefore the limited scope of challenge in this appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Presiding Officer. 2. Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellant who adverted to the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the learned Tribunal had not given due weightage to the fact that the claim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Goa State Information Commission (State Commission, for short), by which a penalty of Rs.2,000/- is imposed on respondent no. 2 (who was the opponent no. 1 before the State Commission). The petitioner is basically aggrieved by the inadequate amount of penalty imposed on respondent no. 2 and the contention is that under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act, for short), the State Commission had no authority to reduce the penalty, by taking a lenient view. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner had sought certain information about leave records of one Kashinath Shetye, which application was rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and also the First Appellate Authority. On 31.12.2008, the State Commission directed that the information be furnished within ten days. It appears that the third party, Mr. Kashinath Shetye challenged the order of the State ...
Tag this Judgment!