Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: mumbai goa Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.031 seconds)

Dec 14 2012 (HC)

M/S. Enpee Earthmovers and Others Vs. M/S.Resources International and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Dec-14-2012

by this common judgment, i propose to dispose of all the above criminal appeals as they pertain to bouncing of cheques issued in relation to the same transaction. 2. criminal appeals no. 6 of 2010; 7 of 2010; 9 of 2010 7 and 10 of 2010 have been preferred against the judgments/orders dated 30/9/2008 passed by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ponda in criminal cases no. 35/oa/99/a; 34/oa/99/a; 39/oa/99/a; and 45/oa/99/a, respectively. criminal appeal no. 8 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment/order dated 29/9/2009 passed by the learned judicial magistrate first class, panaji in criminal case no. 254/oa/99/c. vide the said judgments, impugned in the present appeals, the complaints filed by the appellant against the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881. (n.i. act, for short) were all dismissed. 3. the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause titles of the impugned judgments. 4. the complainant is a partnership firm. the accused no. 1 is also a partnership firm and accused nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. the accused nos. 2 and 3 are also the partners of m/s. resourceful earthmovers, which according to the complainant is the sister concern of the accused. the case of the complainant is that for various works carried out by the complainant for m/s. resourceful 8 earthmovers, the said firm had become due and liable to the complainant in september, 1998 to pay a total .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2012 (HC)

State (Vasco Police Station) and Others Vs. Ryan Fernandes and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Dec-17-2012

the confirmation case and all the above criminal appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since they arise out of the judgment and order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the principal district and sessions judge, south goa, margao in sessions case no. 15/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 365, 302, 201 read with section 120b of indian penal code ('ipc' for short) and sentencing them as below :accused no.name of the accusedsentences imposed on the accused1.ryan fernandesdeath penalty for the offence under section 302 ipc and to pay a fine of rs.20,000/-, and if recovered, the same shall be paid to pw.54 sarika and pw.57 jaimini and other daughter as compensation in accordance with section 357, cr.p.c.;rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under section 365 of ipc; death penalty for the offence under section 120 b, ipc and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment; imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 201, ipc and a fine of rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment;2.francisco alias francis gregorio paul d'saimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment under section 302, ipc;rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of rs.5,000/-, in default, to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2012 (HC)

Shailesh Manohar Sastikar, S/O. Late Manohar Sastikar Vs. State of Goa

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Jul-09-2012

u.v. bakre, j. the appellant is the original accused no. 2 in sessions case no. 21 of 2008. he has been convicted by the learned sessions judge, panaji (trial court) for offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code (i.p.c.) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. he is also convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of i.p.c. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 28/04/2011 and order dated 01/06/2011, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. the appellant as accused no.2 and his father namely manohar sastikar, since deceased, as accused no. 1 were tried for the offence punishable under sections 504, 324, and 302 read with section 34 of i.p.c. during the course of the trial, accused no.1 expired and the case abated as against him. 3. prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:- there was rivalry between the families of deceased vasant sastikar and the deceased accused no.1 manohar sastikar, who were real brothers, on account of property dispute. on 11/05/2008 at about 19.30 hours at the general store trupti general store, at kitla, salvador-do-mundo, belonging to sagun sastikar, (p.w.1), both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, abused p.w.1 and his family members .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 2012 (HC)

Shailesh Manohar Sastikar, S/O. Late Manohar Sastikar Vs. State of Goa

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Jul-09-2012

u.v. bakre, j. the appellant is the original accused no. 2 in sessions case no. 21 of 2008. he has been convicted by the learned sessions judge, panaji (trial court) for offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code (i.p.c.) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. he is also convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of i.p.c. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 28/04/2011 and order dated 01/06/2011, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. the appellant as accused no.2 and his father namely manohar sastikar, since deceased, as accused no. 1 were tried for the offence punishable under sections 504, 324, and 302 read with section 34 of i.p.c. during the course of the trial, accused no.1 expired and the case abated as against him. 3. prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:- there was rivalry between the families of deceased vasant sastikar and the deceased accused no.1 manohar sastikar, who were real brothers, on account of property dispute. on 11/05/2008 at about 19.30 hours at the general store ??trupti general store ? , at kitla, salvador-do-mundo, belonging to sagun sastikar, (p.w.1), both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, abused p.w.1 and his family .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2012 (HC)

Rajendra Kumar S/O. Shrem Kumar Vs. the State of Goa

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Dec-07-2012

by this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter, referred to as ??the accused ? ) takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22nd december, 2008, passed by the special judge, at mapusa in special criminal case no. 1/2008, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 ( ??the act ? for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. the accused has been granted set off in respect of the period of detention in terms of section 428 cr.p.c. 2. the appellant was accused no.2 in special criminal case no. 1/2008 filed against two accused pursuant to a raid conducted by pw.7 punaji gawas, attached to the anc police station, panaji on the basis of a specific and reliable information received on 23.10.2007 that one lady and one man would be coming near dipti's bar and restaurant, vagator on the same day with charas. the raid was conducted, after recording the information received. the raiding party consisting of pw.7 punaji gawas, pw.5 dina mandrekar, pi ashish shirodkar and others along with panchas proceeded to the spot and at about 15.25 hrs. the raiding party noticed a lady and a man coming near dipti's bar and restaurant. suspecting that they were the same persons in respect of whom the information was received, the raiding party identified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2012 (HC)

Andre Fernandes Vs. State and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Aug-03-2012

oral judgment : by this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27.5.2010, passed by the additional sessions judge-1, panaji, goa in sessions case no. 16/2009, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offence punishable under section 307 of indian penal code (ipc) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay compensation of rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to the victim and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. briefly, the prosecution case is as under: in the year 2006, the victim pw5 sweta zantye was working in the shop rohit vision at mapusa as an accountant. she used to leave her house to go to work at 9.00 a.m. and return home at 7.00 p.m. her aunt smt. satyabhama bhagkar was staying at chicalim, vasco and sometimes, she used to go to her house to stay there. once, while she was going to chicalim, the accused sat beside her and started talking to her and started asking her name, address, etc. he then told her that he was interested in her and then asked her whether she was interested in him, to which she stated that she was not interested in him. on 11.5.2006, when she was coming out of her office, in the evening hours, the accused came near her office and asked her whether she would marry him, but she told him that she was not interested in marrying him. again on 13.5.2006, in the evening hours, the accused came to her house at bastora. at that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2012 (HC)

M/S Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Balaji Logistics Carr ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Aug-17-2012

in both these matters the parties are the same and the issues are interconnected. therefore, both the matters are taken up and being disposed of by common judgment. 2. heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 4. m/s shree mallikarjun shipping private limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) entered into a contract with m/s balaji logistic carrier (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) dated 25.2.2008 as the seller and the applicant as the buyer for 40000 m.t. of iron ore of 63.50% fe contents at rs.4,500/- per dmt. since certain dispute arose between the parties in connection with the said contract the applicant issued notice dated 22.12.2009 calling upon the respondent to refer the dispute to an arbitrator and to agree to arbitration by nominated arbitrator. 5. on 29.12.2009, the applicant filed an application being arbitration application no. 20/2009 under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 ( the act for short) in the court of district judge, south goa, margao against the respondent seeking interim reliefs. by order dated 10.3.2011, learned district judge allowed the application against which the respondent preferred an appeal in this court being appeal under arbitration act no. 3/11. by order dated 7.7.2011, this court set aside the order passed by the district court and remanded the matter to the district court to decide all the issues including issue of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2012 (HC)

Sheikh Shabbir Vs. Shaikh Yusuf

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Sep-10-2012

oral judgment: heard mr. sudesh usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. pereira, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. by this appeal, the appellant ('the accused') takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31/12/2009 passed by the judicial magistrate, first class, vasco-da-gama in criminal case no.66/oa/nia/09/c acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ('the act' for short). 3. the case of the complainant in brief is as follows: the accused approached the complainant with the proposal that he wanted to extend his business of processing quick and quality photo film processing, by purchasing new digital film processing unit, konica 808 gold, run by him under the name and style f. m. studio and requested the complainant to invest an amount of rs.5 lakhs in the said business. the accused also assured the complainant that the business would fetch good profits and the complainant would get an amount of rs.12,50,000/- (rs. twelve lakhs fifty thousand only) in the form of 25,000/- per month for 50 months. accordingly, the complainant handed over rs.5 lakhs to the accused to be invested in the business and memorandum of understanding dated 25/07/2008 was drawn and executed between the accused and the complainant before notary shri t. t. shreedharan at vasco-da-gama. according to the complainant, from the said amount, the accused purchased the new digital film processing unit, but the accused .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2012 (HC)

Sheikh Shabbir Vs. Shaikh Yusuf

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Sep-10-2012

oral judgment: heard mr. sudesh usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. pereira, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. by this appeal, the appellant ('the accused') takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31/12/2009 passed by the judicial magistrate, first class, vasco-da-gama in criminal case no.66/oa/nia/09/c acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ('the act' for short). 3. the case of the complainant in brief is as follows: the accused approached the complainant with the proposal that he wanted to extend his business of processing quick and quality photo film processing, by purchasing new digital film processing unit, konica 808 gold, run by him under the name and style ??f. m. studio ? and requested the complainant to invest an amount of rs.5 lakhs in the said business. the accused also assured the complainant that the business would fetch good profits and the complainant would get an amount of rs.12,50,000/- (rs. twelve lakhs fifty thousand only) in the form of 25,000/- per month for 50 months. accordingly, the complainant handed over rs.5 lakhs to the accused to be invested in the business and memorandum of understanding dated 25/07/2008 was drawn and executed between the accused and the complainant before notary shri t. t. shreedharan at vasco-da-gama. according to the complainant, from the said amount, the accused purchased the new digital film processing unit, but the accused .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2012 (HC)

Shaikh Iqbal Muzawar Vs. Abitalib Malik

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Sep-27-2012

heard mr. vaz, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. menezes, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. by this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26/03/2010 passed by the judicial magistrate, first class, panaji in oa case no.945/2008/b acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under section 138 of negotiable instruments act, 1881 ('the act' for short). 3. the appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused in the above case. the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial court. 4. the complainant filed the above criminal case against the accused for dishonour of cheque dated 21/02/2008 for an amount of rs.67,000/- drawn on icici bank which according to the complainant, was issued by the accused towards repayment of the loan taken by the accused. the cheque was presented by the complainant for payment. the same was dishonoured on 11/06/2008 with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. thereafter, the complainant issued the notice dated 01/07/2008 by registered post a.d. which according to the complainant, was refused by the accused although the accused was intimated about the said notice. since the accused did not make payment, the complainant filed the above criminal case and examined himself in support of his case. the defence of the accused was of total denial. he also pleaded that notice sent by the complainant under section 138 of the act, was not addressed on the correct .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //