Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Shri D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 5. The above petition inter alia prays for a writ to direct the respondent no.2 to register the marriage of the petitioner without insisting for A Court order as the same is not contemplated in law. 6. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner desire to perform the marriage with Mr. Rajesh Gobind Bhatria, who is an Americaln National. It is further her contention that the respondent no. 2 as per notification dated 17.1.2014 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 the Government of Goa has been appointed as the Marriag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Order ( Per F. M. Reis, J) 1. The above petition inter alia seeks for a direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and all other concerned authorities to initiate legal proceedings for the demolition of the house bearing no. B-249 located in Survey no.62/1 of village Panchayat of Reis Magos. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that in the village of Betim there exists a property bearing survey no.62/5 which is situated entirely within 100 metres of the high tide line of river Mandovi and falls within the No Development Zone of CRZ-II area of Betim village. It is further his case that on 19.7.1991 Mrs. Augusta D'Souza made an application in Form B to the North Goa Planning and Development Authority( NGDPA for short) for the construction of a residential bungalow in the property Surveyed under No. 62/5 of village Betim. It is further his contention that said Mrs. Augusta D'Souza has falsely represented at point no. 12 in Form 11 that the property is not in the vicinity of the coa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned Judge was justified to decree the suit filed by the respondents relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1985 Bombay 202 in the case of Smt. Purificacao Fernandes v/s Dr. Hugo Vicente de Perpetuo Socorro Andrade Menezes and Ors.? 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Mr. R. Ramani, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 5. Mr. A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Lower Appellate Court has misconstrued the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the appellants were not living with the deceased during her lifetime. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Trial Judge at para 26 had clearly arrived ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Service to respondent no.3 (original defendant no.2) is dispensed with. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The first and the second respondents had filed a suit for possession and mesne-profits against the petitioner and the third respondent. The suit was decreed in the year 2007, which is the subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2010 before the learned District Judge at Panaji. It appears that an application for amendment of the Written Statement was filed by the petitioner at the appellate stage, which was rejected on 27/02/2014. However, by an order dated 29/11/2014, the Appellate Court reviewed the order dated 27/02/2014 and permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement. That was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent nos.1 and 2 before this Court in Appeal from Order No.4/2015, which was dismissed on 20/02/2015. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. By this criminal revision Application, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 13/1/2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Margao in Criminal Appeal No.60/2013, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 10/4/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao in Criminal Case No.209/OA/NIA/2010/D convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (the Act for short) and the consequent sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and for payment of compensation of Rs.1.5 crores has been confirmed. This Court (S. B. Shukre, J) by an order dated 3/3/2016 in Criminal Misc. Application no.45/2016 had fixed this revision application for final disposal at the admission stage. In such circumstances, the revision application is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated 26/11/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in SCS No.14/11/B. 3. The petitioners in W.P.No.20/2016 are the original plaintiffs while Writ Petition No.631/2016 is filed by the original defendant no.2 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, in their original capacities, as plaintiffs and defendants. 4. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration, that the plaintiffs and original defendant nos.3 to 6 are the owners and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, more particularly described in para 2 of the plaint. The plaintiffs are seeking a direction to the Survey Authorities to delete the names of the defendant nos.1 and 2 from the occupant's column in respect of the suit property (Survey No.28/1) by substit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Shri G. Agni, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The original applicant before the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa Panaji has filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ( the Act for short hereinafter) pursuant to which he declined to secure the appellant with the interim measures of relief under Section 9 of the Act which is akin to an order under Order XXXIX CPC. 5. Shri J. Ramaiya, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant came to be heard who first contended that the learned Principal District Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that the Deed of Partnership was a camouflage. Such an examination of the Deed was open to an arbitrator, if any, appointed in the proceedings but it was not available to the District Judge to examine the nuances of the Deed of Partnership. He ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the petitions. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of parties. 2. Both these petitions are between the same parties and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner has filed Matrimonial Petition No.51/2013 against the respondent, for annulment of marriage under Articles 18, 19 and 20 read with Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Law of Marriage, which petition is pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Bicholim. 4. The case made out in the petition is that the respondent is a transgender and as such, is not able to discharge the matrimonial obligations. 5. The petitioner filed an application (Exhibit-24), for a direction to the respondent to subject herself for medical examination. It was contended that looking to the controversy involved, it is necessary that the respondent is medically examined. That application, was opposed by the respondent. 6. The learned trial Court by the impug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition at the instance of the original defendant nos.1 to 6 is to the order dated 19/07/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, whereby, application dated 29/08/2013 in Special Civil Suit No.102/2001/A filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs, for production of the document (D-20) has been allowed and the same is directed to be "treated as a secondary evidence". The respondent nos.3 to 5 are original defendant nos.7 to 9 before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the final judgment/order dated 15/03/2000 passed in inventory proceedings no.72/1998 approving the partition, be declared as null and void and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. On 28/01/2016, a notice for final disposal was issued in this petition. The record shows that the respondents were also represented by their Counsel on 04/05/2016. However, today, none appears for the respondents. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the petition is being disposed of finally. 2.The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who are challenging the order dated 28/12/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.93/2010/D, whereby their application (Exh.31), for permission to lead secondary evidence, by production of negatives of some photographs, produced on record, has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Suresh Pandharipande vs. Parag Pandharipande; 2016(2) ALL M R 563, in order to submit that the existence of original document and its loss, are the two factors necessary, to permit the petitioners to lead evidence. He,...
Tag this Judgment!