Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: mumbai goa Page 10 of about 1,244 results (0.254 seconds)

May 04 2016 (HC)

M/s. Nivaran Solutions and Others Vs. M/s. Aura Thia Spa Services Pvt. ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, Arbitration Act ) arises from an order dated 29.10.2014 passed on Section 9 Arbitration Act application by the Principal District Judge, Panji, Goa refusing to exercise his authority under Section 9 on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 2. The appellant No.1 is a partnership firm and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are its partners. The respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the business of offering various Spa and Saloon services. The respondent No.2 is the director of the respondent no. 1-company. The appellant No.1 being interested in marketing Spa and Saloon services in the State of Goa, executed two agreements with the respondent No.1, both dated 31st October, 2012. By these agreements, the respondent No.1 was appointed as Master Franchisee and was given exclusive right in the entire State of Goa to market the p...

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2016 (HC)

Nasreen Shaikh Anwar and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through the P.I.

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Both these Revision applications arise out of the order dated 23/7/2005 passed by the learned Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.42/2013. They involve common and connected questions of law and facts, as such, these criminal revisions applications are been disposed of finally by common judgment. 2. The brief facts are that the original complainant, Mrs. Aysha Rayhan is the daughter of the petitioner Mrs. Nasreen Shaikh (Accused no.1) and the sister of Mr. Tabrez Anwar (Accused no.2). There appears to be a dispute between the complainant on one hand and the petitioners/accused on the other, regarding the residential house. The incident in question has occurred on 29/1/2013, at about 11.30 a.m. at the house of the complainant. As per the complaint lodged, it was claimed by the complainant that his brother Tabrez Anwar had sent three labourers to her house. It was claimed that the accused no.1 hit 9 years old son of the complainant, by name Arman Rehan with a slap on his ear an...

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2016 (HC)

Paresh Pandurang Naik and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secr ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these petitions arise from the Judgment and order dated 10/2/2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji, in STAT Appeal No.2/2014, as such, the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their respective capacity in W.P. No.398/2016. 3. By a public notice dated 11/6/2013, the second respondent, Regional Transport Authority (RTA) had invited applications from persons desirous of getting a regular contract carriage permit (permit, for short) to operate one yellow black taxi (A.C) from Margao (Konkan Railway station stand). In pursuance of the advertisement, in all four persons including the petitioner and the respondent no.2, Paresh Naik (Petitioner in W.P. No.299/2016) applied for grant of the permit. The applications were initially considered in the meeting of ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2016 (HC)

State of Goa and Another Vs. Laxmikant D. Naik Karmali and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, the State takes exception to the Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, in Execution Application No.93 of 2013. By the impugned Order, the Executing Court has held that the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors would be liable to pay the amount as computed by the Respondents/Decree Holders. The amount recoverable is to the tune of Rs.1,38,227/- as on 31.08.2014. 3. The precise question is whether the liability of the State to pay interest would cease, when the decretal amount is deposited in pursuance of or as a condition of grant of stay. The question is no longer res integra as it is covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors. vs. O. R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1968 SC 1047 and in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and anr. v...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2016 (HC)

Savia Melo Furtado e Barros and Others Vs. Heritage Princes Real Estat ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Heard 2. Admit. 3. Ms. V. Palyekar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. This is an appeal at the instance of the original defendants assailing the order passed by the learned Adhoc Senior Judge, Mapusa dated 12/05/2015 pursuant to which she allowed the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and secured them with the relief of injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering or trespassing the suit plot or alienating the suit plot or any portion thereof pending the final disposal of the suit. The defendant assailed the order on several grounds taken in the appeal memo which are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition. 5. Be that as it may, Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate for the appellants took me through the various documents including the Memorandum of Understanding( MOU for short) dated 25.08.2010 and the pleadings to canvass a case that there were no pleadings on the readiness and willingness of the respondent...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2016 (HC)

Aires D'Costa @ Ayres Genesio Jose Estevan Da Costa Vs. The Chief Secr ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Considering the limited controversy involved, as set out hereinafter, it would not be necessary to serve the unserved respondent nos.14, 15, 20, 38, 39 and 40. I find that at the highest, the respondent nos.6 and 7, who are original defendant nos.6 and 7 would be the contesting parties. They are served. However, none appears for them. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit Not.22/2014 in which there are 42 defendants. The present issue pertains to defendant nos.41 now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was said to be proprietor of Al Sharif Beef Centre. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the respondent nos.6 and 7 have erected a Sports cum Commercial Complex by encroaching on the land belonging to the petitioner. It was contended that out of said complex, Shop no.14 was allotted to now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was running Al Sharif Beef Centre , therein. It appears that on the de...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2016 (HC)

Emgee Housing Private Limited and Others Vs. ELS Developers Private Li ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. By this petition, the petitioners (respondents before the Arbitrator) are challenging order dated 09.08.2012, passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (CLB) in Company Application No. 27/2012 in Company Petition No. 8/397-398/CLB/MB/2012. By the impugned order, the CLB has dismissed the Company Application No. 27/2012, thereby refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That, the respondent herein (petitioner before the CLB) had filed the aforesaid company application alleging mismanagement by the petitioners, as majority shareholders of the petitioner no. 1-Company. That, company petition is filed for seeking action in respect of oppression and mismanagement. It appears that the petitioners filed Company Application No. 27/2012 therein, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act, for short), seeking reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. That applica...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2016 (HC)

Santosh Kudtarkar Vs. State, Represented by the PP and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. This Revision Application at the instance of the original Accused no. 6, takes exception to the Order dated 09.02.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, at Mapusa in Session Case no. 13 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has directed framing of charge against the Accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application may be stated thus: That, Ankita Kudtarkar, is the daughter of the cousin brother of the Petitioner. Ankita and now deceased Pranay Padloskar, were in a relationship since about seven years prior to death of Pranay. There were disputes and differences between the families of Ankita and Pranay on account of the affair/relationship between them which were said to be patched up at Valpoi Police Station where the parties had landed on account of filing of complaint and counter complaints. 3. On 06.03.201...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2016 (HC)

Suraj Tulshidas Naik Vs. Chandar Barkelo Fadte and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2.Heard Shri Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the original Plaintiffs and the only contesting Respondents. The service of notice to Respondents No.6 and 7, who are original defendants No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 3.The Petitioner, who is the original Defendant No.1, filed an application for production of additional documents being Application Exhibit 104-D. Thereby, the Petitioner sought to produce a CD of photographs which were clicked on 03.10.2007 by a professional photographer namely Eknath Uttam Khedekar and a certificate dated 09.03.2015 issued by Rucha Photo Studio. The Trial Court found that the Petitioner had filed a list of documents on 25.02.2009 and as the CD was generated on 30.06.2008, which was prior to the filing of the list of documents, th...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2016 (HC)

Dr. Ankita Arun Pednekar and Another Vs. State of Goa, through the Chi ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Ms. Aditi Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and Mr. Nitin Sardesai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents No.9 to 14. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The above petition, inter alia, seeks for a writ to quash and set aside the Merit List dated 7th April, 2016 for the purpose of admissions to M.D.S. Programs for the academic year 2016-17 in the Goa Dental College, and for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents that the admissions to the Post Graduate M.D.S. Programs for the year 2016-17 be made on the basis of the Merit List circulated on 5th April, 2016. Another relief sought by the petitioners is for a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting asid...

Tag this Judgment!


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