Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri A.V.Pavithran, learned Advocate for the petitioner appointed under the Free Legal Aid at his instance who relied in Asiya Sayed Khwaja Ayub V/s. State of Maharashtra and others [MANU/MH/0818/2012] and Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad and Others v/s. Shivakka(2)and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 419], Shri Ryan Menezes, appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and Shri S.R.Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the authorities. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the State. 3. This Criminal Writ Petition is at the instance of the prisoner alleging that he was subjected to physical and mental torture apart from harassment and assault by the Prison Authority on duty and seeking the intervention of this Court by way of the remedy of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Order: 1. This is an application for bail. The applicant, who is a co-accused is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 365, 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The prosecution case as elicited from the complaint dated 20.12.2015, lodged by one Bhagirath Kharol is that, the accused persons in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, abducted the complainant's brother-in-law by name Ratan Kharol on 17.12.2015 and caused his death and destroyed the evidence with an intention to screen themselves from punishment, by chopping the dead body in parts and disposing of the same at various places in the State. 3. It appears that the deceased Ratan Kharol was running a sugarcane juice gada. One Biju Gopi had asked the deceased to look after his shop, as Biju was required to go out for some urgent work. During the absence of Biju, a male person entered the shop and took away a pulley and the safety shoes. When the deceased accosted the said person (who according to the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri M. Amonkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent forthwith. 3. Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. A complaint was lodged by the complainant dated 21/12/2011 to the Officer incharge of the Panaji Town Police Station against Fortis Hospitals Limited, Dr. Vivek Jawali, Shri Abhinandan N. Dastenavar and the petitioner herein in which she alleged that on or about 30/8/2010, she was suffering from a heart ailment and a heart surgery was imperative. She consulted Dr. Jawali at the clinic of Dr. Francisco Colaco at Margao who on going through her medical reports opined that an open heart surgery was urgently required followed by AVR (Mosaic Valve) and that she would have to report to the Fortis Hospitals, Bangalore two days prior to the surgery date for necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 9/06/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Eviction Appeal No.236/2000. By the impugned judgment the Administrative Tribunal, has set aside the order dated 28/09/2000 passed by the additional Rent Controller, Margao and the petitioners are directed to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the respondent filed eviction proceedings against now deceased Sitaram Naik for eviction from the suit shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from June 1979 till the filing of the application i.e. 10/07/1980. 3. It appears that within thirty days of the service of the summons, the petitioners deposited the entire arrears of the rent on 10/07/1980. The petitioners also filed a written statement on 31/07/1980 contesting the application. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions the learned Rent Controll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Ms. Prachi Sawant, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf the respondent no.1, Ms. Tanvi Ghanekar, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent 4 A.O. no.44 and 45 of 2016 nos.3 and 4 and Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7 in A.O. No. 44 of 2016. Shri A. Gomes Pereira, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the Caveator in A.O. No.45 of 2016. 4. Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellants who submitted that in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code ('C.P.C.' for short) no ex-parte reliefs could have been granted as a matter of course. He adverted to the reliefs claimed in the plaint filed at the instance of the respondent no.1 and submitted that the properties referred to therein which were a part of the Annexure-II belonged to the parents who were living. The partnership and the company in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these revision applications are between the same parties and involve a common question as to whether the plaint in a suit filed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). As such, these revision applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision applications may be stated thus: Respondent no. 1-Norton D'Souza is the original plaintiff. The petitioner-Selwyn Agnelo Botelho (CRA No. 25/2015) is the original defendant no. 1, while the petitioner-Shirley Botelho (CRA No. 35/2015) is the original defendant no. 2 before the trial Court. Shirley Botelho is the wife of Selwin Botelho. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity as plaintiff and defendants. 4. The plaintiff filed S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the common order dated 07.04.2009, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Execution Application Nos.9/2008 and 12/2008. By the said order, the Execution Application No. 12/2008, filed by the petitioner is rejected, while Execution Application No. 9/2008, filed by respondent no. 1, has been allowed. Consequently, it has been directed that the judgment debtor no. 2 i.e. M/s Landscape Developers shall hand over and transfer the suit flat to Shri Sahajanand Investments Private Limited, after receiving the payment of the amount due, under the award. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent no. 1- Shri Sahajanand Investments Private Limited, has executed an agreement with the petitioner-Vinanti Gaonkar, under which the petitioner had agreed to purchase suit flat no. 523 for a total price of Rs.13,00,000/-. M/s Landscape Developers was a confirming party to the suit flat. As disputes and differences arose between the part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the disputant before the Nominee of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is challenging the judgment and order dated 23.11.2015, passed by the learned President, Co-operative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa in Co-operative Revision Application No. 5/2014, by which the order dated 09.06.2014, passed by the Nominee of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, allowing the application for amendment of the respondent, has been confirmed. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid dispute stating that the respondent is staying in a flat on the third floor of the building, bearing Flat No. B/T-1. It is contended that the respondent has constructed an illegal shed, opposite his flat on terrace 'B' on 25.05.2010 and fitted a fabricated gate, next to the second floor flat on 30.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order, by which the Assistant Director of Transport and Member Secretary, (RTA), Bicholim, Goa (herein after referred to as the Competent Authority), has cancelled the stage carriage permit of the petitioner to ply the vehicle bearing registration no. GA-01-U-7088, on Hivrem to Panaji route. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is holding a stage carriage permit to operate the said vehicle. It so happened that on 28.07.2014 at 7 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident at Valpoi in respect of which, an offence at Crime No. 53/2014 was registered under Sections 279, 336, 377 and 338 of IPC and Sections 3, 134(1)(b), 180 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act, for short) with P.S. Valpoi. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that at the time of accident, the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Asha Desai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 and Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. A. Kamat, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to the rejection of the representation filed by the petitioner for claiming the entitlement of pensionary benefits or in the alternative to condone the break in services in the employment . 3. The brief facts of the case as under:- The petitioner made an application to the respondent no.3 in the year 1992 as a full time post of Lecturer in the subject of Zoology. By a letter dated 17th November, 1992 the respondent no.3 appointed the petitioner to the full time post of Lecturer in the subject of Zoology. It is further contended that by letter dated 20.6.1994 the respondent no.3 continued the services of the petitioner for another academic year 1994-9...
Tag this Judgment!