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 petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Goa in Miscellaneous Application No. 7/2015. By the impugned order, the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 108 days in filing an appeal challenging the judgment and the award dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Registrar's Nominee of the Co-operative Societies, South Goa in Misfeasance Case No. 1-204-2012/TS/RCS/VUCCSI/509. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner no. 1 is working as Clerk with the respondent-Cooperative Credit Society, while the petitioner no. 2, who is the wife of petitioner no. 1 is working as a agent for collecting pigmy deposits for the said Co-operative Credit Society. The aforesaid misfeasance proceedings were started against the petitioners on the file of the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. By this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short), the petitioner is seeking modification/ recalling of the part of the order dated 07/08/2015 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.33/2015. 2. By the said order, the respondent no.1, Communidade of Cortalim was allowed to withdraw the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application and while doing so, this Court had noted the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 in the capacity as a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code, would have a right to file an appeal against acquittal, before the learned Sessions Judge by virtue of proviso to Section 372 of the Code and that the respondent no.1 intends to take recourse to the said remedy. 3. This Court in para 4 of the order, after noticing the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code, had observed that the respondent no.1 Communidade would come within the ambit of definition of 'victim'. 4. The brief ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents in Appeal from Order no.1/2016 and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent in Appeal from Order no.9/2016. These are appeals at the instance of the original plaintiffs and the defendants coming up for disposal by a common judgment. The parties would be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants for brevity's sake hereinafter in view of the two appeals filed by each of them assailing the same order passed by the trial Court securing the plaintiffs with the partial order of injunction while imposing certain conditions on them and the appeal of the defendants challenging the order securing the plaintiffs with the order of injunction. 4. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the plaintiffs who submitted that appeal was limited to the conditions attached to the injunction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1976 ( COFEPOSA Act for short hereinafter). 2. The detention order dated 31.3.2015 was issued by the respondent no.2 against him under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the smuggling of gold and allied object. The detention order was served on him on 3.8.2015 and he was taken in detention. He was served with a copy of the detention order with the grounds of detention and the list of documents were purported to have been placed before the Detaining Authority and purported to have been referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority. The impugned order of detention was also served on him on 28.7.2015. 3. In the brief facts, on 7.7.2014, the officer of the Customs seized 19.491 kgs of gold from the possession of three international ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. A Suo Motu cognizance was taken by this Court based on the news item in the local news paper by an order dated 31.07.2006 and accordingly notices were issued to the concerned Government Authorities. Thereafter, by order dated 08.08.2006 the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court brought to the notice of this Court the various orders and the guidelines issued in different other petitions in connection with the structures which mushroomed within the NDZ area and subject to the CRZ Regulations, 1991. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 08.08.2006 passed the following directions. 6. Having heard Mrs. Alvares, it has become necessary to issue following directions to the State Government. (a) The Chief Secretary State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are original accused nos.2 and 3, before the learned Magistrate are seeking quashing of the said charge sheet/proceedings. 3. On 20/05/2014, respondent no.4 lodged a complaint. According to the complainant the incident had occurred on 19/05/2014 at around 20.30 hrs. It was reported that the complainant was knowing Mr. Sairaj Naik @ Sona (accused no.1) resident of Majorda, Salcete Goa. The said Sona was supposed to give a carpet to the complainant on 19/05/2014. At around 20.30 hrs., the complainant met Mr. Sona and asked him about the carpet, however, Sona refused to give the same. Subsequently, the complainant and Sona went on the motorcycle of the complainant bearing no.GA-02-0596 to Pacheco Wine Shop at Pacheco Wado, Majorda to see the owner of the said shop as he was present at the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.133/2015 dated 16/12/2015 of P.S. Verna, by which offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (for short, Act of 2003) and Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act have been registered against the applicants. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner Aleixo happens to be the Bhatkar of the complainant Custodio Pereira, the third respondent herein. The fourth respondent is the son of the third respondent. The fourth respondent is a teacher and is conducting tuition classes at his house. As per the complaint lodged by the third respondent, on 16/12/2015 he was sick. At around 9.45 p.m., the complainant was sitting outside his house when the petitioner Aleixo was seen coming towards his house....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. A.A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Shri. P. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and the learned Additional Govt. Advocates for the respondents No.4 and 5. Both the above petitions were taken up together by consent of the learned Counsel as it was pointed out that issues involved are similar. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. We have extensively heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and though there were rival contentions raised by Shri S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 University with regard to the legality or otherwise of the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 15/1/2016 cancel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. We have heard Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant who took us through the judgment under challenge and submitted that it was a clear case where the impugned judgment warranted an interference and the conviction passed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC was required to be interfered with. It was his contention that at the highest and without prejudice, the conviction had to be altered to that under Section 304(ii) IPC as no intention to commit the offence of murder was proved against him. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that there was no reason to interference with the judgment under challenge and the conviction had to be upheld. Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance in the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Subhash Samal Vs. State of Goa (Criminal Appeal No.5/2011) and Suresh Behra Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.3/2010). 2. The question which arises for c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant, is challenging the order dated 12/10/2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Collector and Rent Controller, Mapusa in Rent/MAP/7/1992, which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 20/12/2013 in Rent Appeal No.33/2013. As a result, the petitioner has been directed to be evicted, as being consistently in arrears of rent under Section 32(4) of the Goa Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short). 3. The brief facts are that, premises known as 'Adarsh Niwas', situated at Feira-Baixa, Mapusa, wherein the petitioner is conducting a bar and restaurant, are subject matter of dispute. The disputed premises were let out by now deceased Jivottam Naik to late father of the petitioner Shripad Atmaram Gadekar. After the death of S...
Tag this Judgment!