Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: mumbai goa Page 11 of about 1,244 results (0.141 seconds)

Apr 18 2016 (HC)

Ramkrishna P. Kandolkar and Others Vs. Peter Paul D'Souza (since decea ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996. 3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed for eviction against the original defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased original plaintiff. The respondents had sought vacant possession of House No. 43/9, Survey No.159/9 of village Candolim (hereinafter referred to as the suit house) vide Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. According to the petitioners, this suit was filed by the respondents out of grudge that respondents nurtured against the petitioners on account of the petitioners having lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 of Indian Penal...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2016 (HC)

Roger Franco and Another Vs. Leonara Fernandes

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Mapusa in Appeal No. DC/MND/MAP/APL/BAR-11/3/2011. By the impugned judgment, the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to challenge the order of registration dated 14.05.1986, passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez, has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the land bearing survey no. 175/19 of village Calangute, Bardez, Goa is subject matter of the ispute. According to the petitioners, the said land was belonging to their ancestors, Mrs. Rosalina Fernandes, who passed away in the year 1982. Rosalina had a son, Mr. Andrew Fernandes and two daughters, Mrs. Catherine Franco and Mrs. Pedrinha Pereira. Vicent Franco was the husband of Catherine Franco. Vicent Franco and Catherine Franc...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 2016 (HC)

Roger Franco and Another Vs. Leonara Fernandes

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Mapusa in Appeal No. DC/MND/MAP/APL/BAR-11/3/2011. By the impugned judgment, the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to challenge the order of registration dated 14.05.1986, passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez, has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the land bearing survey no. 175/19 of village Calangute, Bardez, Goa is subject matter of the dispute. According to the petitioners, the said land was belonging to their ancestors, Mrs. Rosalina Fernandes, who passed away in the year 1982. Rosalina had a son, Mr. Andrew Fernandes and two daughters, Mrs. Catherine Franco and Mrs. Pedrinha Pereira. Vicent Franco was the husband of Catherine Franco. Vicent Franco and Catherine Fran...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2016 (HC)

Sadanand Parshuram Naik Parsekar @ Sadanand Parshuram Naik Desai and O ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and Mr. S. Mahambrey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 7. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the main grievance raised by the petitioners is that the committee which was duly elected and was holding the office of the concerned Devasthan was according to the petitioners unauthorisedly and arbitrarily dissolved by the impugned order dated 12.02.2016. It is the contention of the petitioners that the term of the office of the concerned committee who are the respondent nos. 4 to 7 was due to expire on 31.03...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2016 (HC)

Carlos Tavora Vs. M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. The dispute centers around even in this appeal relating to the exhaust chimney installed in the terrace of the premises in question. 3. A brief narration of the facts would be necessary to better appreciate the matter in controversy between the parties and to arrive at a conclusive finding on the issue at large arising for determination in this appeal at the instance of the original defendant. The learned trial Court had disallowed the application of the appellant seeking the relief of variation of the injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which he had sought the protection of the learned trial Court to permit him to replace the blower and the chimney carving a case that although there was an earlier order passed in...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2016 (HC)

Egidio Braganza and Another Vs. Lino Agnelo Fernandes and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 waive service. There is no appearance on behalf of the rest of the respondents, though served. 2. The record shows that on 24/2/2016, a notice indicating that the matter is likely to be heard finally at the admission stage was issued. As such, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit no.60/2012/D against the respondents which is pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji. That suit is inter alia for declaration of a sale deed dated 10/8/1998 and a Gift Deed dated 29/1/2010 as null and void. The petitioner is also praying for a relief of compensation for unauthorized user of the suit structure, permanent injunction and for possession. 4. Indisputably, the Petitioner no. 1 has entered into the witness box and his examination in chief is recorded in full and the suit was adjourned for cross examination. At this stage, the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2016 (HC)

Gajanan Govind Dhumatker Vs. State of Goa and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents waives service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned Order dated 22/08/2014, which is at Annexure A, was passed by the respondent No.1 without following the principles of natural justice, particularly Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. 4. Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that without issuing a show cause notice nor giving a personal hearing to the petitioner in terms of the Rules, the Respondent No.1 arbitrarily passed the impugned order. The learned Counsel further points out that no inquiry was conducted by the respondent N...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2016 (HC)

Kashinath Naik Vs. State of Goa and Another

Court : Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent No.2. The State-Respondent No.1 is a formal party. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of grant of interim maintenance to respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The respondent No.2 filed an application being Maintenance Application No.2/2013/A under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, in which she also claimed interim maintenance. By an order dated 17.01.2014, the learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioner unsuccessfully tried to get the order cancelled by filing an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected on 25.06.2014. The petitioner challenged the original order of grant of interim maintenance before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.2...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2016 (HC)

Conrad D Sa and Others Vs. M/s. FandC Construction and Estate Develope ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Ms. P. Chopdekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Abhay Neogi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice. 5. Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, took me through the record and, more particularly, the Development Agreement entered into between the appellants and the respondent no.1 for development of their properties, apart from the irrevocable power of attorney and more particularly the impugned order under challenge in this appeal to press for the grant of stay, pending the hearing of appeal on merits. 6. It was his contention that the learned Trial Court had given a convenient go-by to the cardinal principles governing the grant of temporary injunction and had ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2016 (HC)

Luis Caetano Guilherme e Melo @ Wellington D'Melo Vs. The State of Goa ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rebello, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner who was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator is taking exception to the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Arbitration Petition No. 21/2012 (old Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 187/2009). By the impugned order, the application for amendment for addition of grounds of challenge, in the application filed by the respondent-State, has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion admeasuring 155 square metres of a building owned by the petitioner. The parties had executed a lease deed on 01.07.1998, which shows that the said property was leased out initially for a period upto 31.03.2001, on an agreed rent of Rs.5,050/- per month. The said lease deed contains an arbitration cla...

Tag this Judgment!


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