2026 March

0

By admin Judgements

A) RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 – Section 4, 7 – Mandatory – Public Information Officer requesting the Petitioner to attend the office of the PIO and inspect the record available at the office and obtain a certified copy of the documents on the payment of the fees is not a decision under Sub Section 1 of Section 7 of the Act, 2005. there was no compliance with the mandate of Section 7 on the part of the PIO. PIO has in fact, informed the Petitioner of the decision to give the information after the mandate of thirty days, which would entitle the Petitioner to receive this information under Sub Section 6, Section 7, free of charge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA (VAMIKI MENEZES J.) WRIT PETITION NO. 113 OF 2026 SHRI. NARAYAN SURESH…

0

By admin Judgements

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Sections 168 and 169 and Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 – The provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC, which empowers a Civil Court to implead parties or drop parties to the proceedings are not made applicable to the procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal under the said Rules.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA ( BEFORE VALMIKI MENEZES J.) Writ Petition No. 692/2023 SHRI. MOHANDAS VINAYAK NAIK AND…

0

By admin Uncategorized

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC – compromise of suit – where the Consent Terms have been filed before the Court and the parties are requesting to draw a Consent Decree in terms of the consent before the Court – The provision mandates the Court to order such an agreement, compromise or satisfaction, which is to be recorded and a Decree to be passed in terms of the agreement of compromise.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2026 ASVAS HOMES LLP … PETITIONER VERSUS…

1 2