Court : Mumbai Goa
1. By this Petition, the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors are challenging the Orders dated 17.02.2016, 25.02.2016 and 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Execution Application no. 100 of 2015. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Petition may be stated thus: That the parties herein had entered into an Agreement dated 17.07.2009, a supplementary Agreement dated 01.09.2009 and lastly an additional Agreement dated 29.05.2010 pertaining to a transaction of purchase of iron ore and its consequent sale to the overseas buyers. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to sole Arbitrator who by an Award dated 18.04.2013 and addendum to the Award dated 19.05.2013 has held the Respondents to be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.14.76 Crores along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2010 until realisation. The said Judgment and Award was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Act for short) is challenging the order dated 27/1/2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona in Cr. Case No.10/NI/2014, by which the learned Magistrate has rejected an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PW.1 and PW.2. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although earlier PW.1, Shri Vassant Devidas, who was the Branch Manager of the respondent/complainant and PW.2, Mr. Amar Gaonkar, who is the Chairman of the respondent were cross examined by the earlier counsel appearing for the petitioner, there are some aspects left out which are necessary for substantiating the defence put forth by the petitioner. It is submitted that under section 311 of Cr.P.C. the Court can direct examination and/or recall of any witness if the examination/re-examination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel, waive service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Although the dispute, out of which, this petition arises, is still at an interim stage, the same has acquired a checkered history. 3. The respondent no. 1-the Goa Housing Board had carried out an auction of a residential plot at Porvorim, Penha de Franca, Bardez, Goa, which auction was held on 30.08.2010. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff was the highest bidder in respect of plot no. 19 admeasuring 335 square metres and had bidded for an amount of Rs.44,98,200/-. Accordingly, as per the order of allotment dated 26.11.2010, the said plot (hereinafter referred to as the suit plot) was allotted in favour of the petitioner, subject to payment of remaining amount of the price, within 25 days. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the date of auction when he went to inspect the site, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the first and second respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 17/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda in Civil Revision Application No.18/2014, by which the judgment and order dated 25/03/2014 passed by the learned Additional Director of Panchayat in Panchayat Appeal No.170/2010, has been confirmed. The learned Additional Director of Panchayat had, in turn, confirmed the order dated 12/10/2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish his house on the ground that it is constructed without permission/ licence from the respondent no.1-Village Panchayat. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of house No.479 of village Kundaim, Ponda, Goa, which was said to be in dilapidated condition, requiring urgent repairs and repla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and by consent, both the petitions were taken up together for final disposal. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, in violation of the various provisions of the Code of Comunidades, namely Articles 342, 326, 329, 334, 334-A have usurped the land belonging to the Comunidade of Serula without following the due process of law, nor the mandatory provisions as contemplated in the said Code. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the usurpation of the land by the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 in survey nos. 376/6, 379, 379/1, 380/1, and 389/1 of the Comunidade, which according to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a non-custodial parent of the minor, is seeking enlargement of the time, for which the visitation rights are granted to the petitioner. 3. By the impugned order dated 19/04/2016, passed by the learned Ad hoc Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in C.M.A.No.80/2009/A, the application Exh.97/D, filed by the petitioner, was rejected, however, with certain conditions, which are as under: The visitation right shall be exercised as per Order passed in 24/6/2014 in Writ Petition 383/2012. The applicant shall be entitled to visit the child on every Wednesdays, Fridays and Sunday for two hours between 5.30 to 7.30 p.m. till the time he is in Goa. The visitation rights shall be exercised in Hotel Vivanta at Panaji in the presence of the mother. The cost of visitation shall be borne by the respondent. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. The original owner of the acquired land is in appeal questioning the validity of the judgment passed by the Reference Court dated 17.07.2012 consequent upon the remand of the file to the Reference Court by this Court setting aside the earlier judgment dated 13.12.2002 in First Appeal No.107/2003 and First Appeal No.136/2003 at the instance of the owner and the Acquiring Department respectively. The Acquiring Department had pursuant to the Section 4 of the Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("The Act" for short hereinafter) had acquired the land for the purpose of a construction of the bypass road which was published in the Official Gazette at Sr. No.34 dated 25.09.1989. An area of 1110 sq. mts. was acquired from the property bearing no.239 of the village Ponda for the said purpose and the Land Acquisition Officer, ("LAO" for short hereinafter) fixed the compensation @ Rs.250/- per square mt. The appellant claimed the enhanced compensation at Rs.4000/- per sq. m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 01/03/2016 passed by the second respondent- Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), by which the second respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short) read with rule 4 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 (the Rules, for short) has directed demolition of 'Sea Valley Restaurant', which is a ground plus one structure along with shops, retaining wall on nullah, situated in property bearing Survey No.212/11 of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. The said structure was originally constructed by Peter Almeida, the father-in-law of the second petitioner somewhere in the year 1977. He started a Bar and Restaurant therein somewhere in the year 1986 after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Nutan d. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 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. The petitioner has sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying to quash and set aside the order dated 18/11/2015 passed by the respondent no.1 through the Chief Secretary and the impugned externment order dated 21/1/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 District Magistrate whereby he was sought to be externed for the maximum period i.e. for a period of two years under the provisions of the Sections 3 and 4 (a) of the Goa Maintenance of Public Order and Safety Act, 1988 ( the Act for short hereinafter) and since he was continuing to cause alarm, danger and harm to the person and the property in association with the gang of persons and...
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. By this petition the Petitioners who are original plaintiffs are challenging the Order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2006/D. By the impugned order application Exhibit-78 filed by the Respondent/Defendant has been allowed and the suit of the Petitioner is dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the Petitioners have instituted the aforesaid suit against the Respondents for partition and other reliefs in which the Petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW-1. It appears that the Respondents had moved an amendment in respect of certain document which was permitted to be produced on record. Thereafter, Respondent applied to the learned Trial Court to recall PW-1 for cross-examination which was allowed. Indisputably, the said Order has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 492...
Tag this Judgment!