Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan

Decided On : Dec-07-1971

Court : Orissa

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 38',
			(int) 2 => 'Constitution'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'G.K. Misra',
			(int) 1 => 'the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat',
			(int) 2 => 'The Munsif, Boudh',
			(int) 3 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 4 => 'the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act',
			(int) 5 => 'AIR 1964 SC',
			(int) 6 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
			(int) 7 => 'AIR 1970 SC 276',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 14 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Lordships',
			(int) 17 => 'the High Court'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2-6-1970',
			(int) 1 => '11-6-1970',
			(int) 2 => '31',
			(int) 3 => '4',
			(int) 4 => '10',
			(int) 5 => 'about 100',
			(int) 6 => 'About 300',
			(int) 7 => 'about 100',
			(int) 8 => '1',
			(int) 9 => '4',
			(int) 10 => '226',
			(int) 11 => '227'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1157',
			(int) 1 => '1126',
			(int) 2 => '1964',
			(int) 3 => '1249',
			(int) 4 => 'thirty days'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2',
			(int) 1 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 1 => 'Bird',
			(int) 2 => 'Ram Sewak Yadav',
			(int) 3 => 'Hussain Kamil Kidwai',
			(int) 4 => 'Jagjit Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'Kartar Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Krishna Behari',
			(int) 7 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 8 => 'Law',
			(int) 9 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 10 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 11 => 'J.6'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '529033',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Original Jur. Case No. 147 of 1971',
			'appellant' => 'Digambar Pradhan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan',
			'casenote' => ' - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation  Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law].  -  Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Patnaik, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S. Misra (2), Adv. and ;B. Das, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-12-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.K. Misra, C.J. and ;S. Acharya, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.K. Misra, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner and the opposite party contested for the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat. The election took place on 2-6-1970. The petitioner's case is that the results were published on 11-6-1970 and he was declared to be duly elected. The petitioner secured 1157 votes while the opposite party secured 1126 votes. There was thus a difference of 31 votes. The opposite party filed an application for inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. The Munsif, Boudh allowed the opposite party's application and directed inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. It is against this order dated 4-1-1971 that this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner contends that the opposite party did not plead the necessary material facts justifying the prayer for inspection and recounting. He refers to paragraph 10 of the election petition which runs thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That about 100 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner in the entire election have been illegally rejected. Although the petitioner's symbol 'Bird and its compartment' bore seal mark or marks yet the same were rejected on the ground that the seal was not clear or double. About 300 votes of the petitioner were rejected and out of the same about 100 votes of the petitioner have been rejected as aforesaid. The petitioner would be able to prove the aforesaid allegation when the petitioner's rejected ballot papers are produced in court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. He places reliance on AIR 1964 SC 1249 (Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai); AIR 1966 SC 773 (Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh) and AIR 1970 SC 276 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari) in support of the contention that unless material facts are pleaded the Court cannot make a fishing and roving enquiry and allow inspection and recounting of ballot papers. For reasons given hereunder we do not propose to express any opinion on the argument on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Under Section 38 (4) of the Act any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal before the District Judge having jurisdiction who shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, reverse, alter or modify the order of the Munsif. The point urged by Mr. Patnaik can be fully canvassed in appeal. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. But the Court must always exercise discretion whether the jurisdiction should be exercised or not. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. In other words, in appeal it is open to Mr. Patnaik to contend that the inspection and recounting that has been permitted by the Munsif is not justified by law. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. In appeal the High Court took a different view. The Supreme Court examined the entire matter and came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of that case did not justify the order of the Tribunal allowing inspection. Accordingly, their Lordships upheld the judgment of the High Court quashing that order and expressed the view that it was unnecessary to further examine whether on recounting the appellant in that case had got more votes than the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case the counting had not been made. On recounting it may be that the petitioner before us may succeed before the Munsif. He had also taken a further point on the question of limitation. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr. Patnaik at a later stage. We do not consider that this is a fit case in which we should exercise our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution despite existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is only on this ground that we dismiss the writ application, but in the circumstances without costs. The stay order is vacated and the Munsif is directed to take steps for expeditious disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Acharya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Ori265',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Arjuna Pradhan',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '529033'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 38',
		(int) 2 => 'Constitution'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'G.K. Misra',
		(int) 1 => 'the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat',
		(int) 2 => 'The Munsif, Boudh',
		(int) 3 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 4 => 'the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act',
		(int) 5 => 'AIR 1964 SC',
		(int) 6 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
		(int) 7 => 'AIR 1970 SC 276',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 14 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Lordships',
		(int) 17 => 'the High Court'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2-6-1970',
		(int) 1 => '11-6-1970',
		(int) 2 => '31',
		(int) 3 => '4',
		(int) 4 => '10',
		(int) 5 => 'about 100',
		(int) 6 => 'About 300',
		(int) 7 => 'about 100',
		(int) 8 => '1',
		(int) 9 => '4',
		(int) 10 => '226',
		(int) 11 => '227'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1157',
		(int) 1 => '1126',
		(int) 2 => '1964',
		(int) 3 => '1249',
		(int) 4 => 'thirty days'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2',
		(int) 1 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 1 => 'Bird',
		(int) 2 => 'Ram Sewak Yadav',
		(int) 3 => 'Hussain Kamil Kidwai',
		(int) 4 => 'Jagjit Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'Kartar Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Krishna Behari',
		(int) 7 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 8 => 'Law',
		(int) 9 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 10 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 11 => 'J.6'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '529033',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Original Jur. Case No. 147 of 1971',
		'appellant' => 'Digambar Pradhan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan',
		'casenote' => ' - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation  Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law].  -  Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Patnaik, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S. Misra (2), Adv. and ;B. Das, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-12-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.K. Misra, C.J. and ;S. Acharya, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.K. Misra, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner and the opposite party contested for the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat. The election took place on 2-6-1970. The petitioner's case is that the results were published on 11-6-1970 and he was declared to be duly elected. The petitioner secured 1157 votes while the opposite party secured 1126 votes. There was thus a difference of 31 votes. The opposite party filed an application for inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. The Munsif, Boudh allowed the opposite party's application and directed inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. It is against this order dated 4-1-1971 that this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner contends that the opposite party did not plead the necessary material facts justifying the prayer for inspection and recounting. He refers to paragraph 10 of the election petition which runs thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That about 100 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner in the entire election have been illegally rejected. Although the petitioner's symbol 'Bird and its compartment' bore seal mark or marks yet the same were rejected on the ground that the seal was not clear or double. About 300 votes of the petitioner were rejected and out of the same about 100 votes of the petitioner have been rejected as aforesaid. The petitioner would be able to prove the aforesaid allegation when the petitioner's rejected ballot papers are produced in court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. He places reliance on AIR 1964 SC 1249 (Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai); AIR 1966 SC 773 (Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh) and AIR 1970 SC 276 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari) in support of the contention that unless material facts are pleaded the Court cannot make a fishing and roving enquiry and allow inspection and recounting of ballot papers. For reasons given hereunder we do not propose to express any opinion on the argument on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Under Section 38 (4) of the Act any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal before the District Judge having jurisdiction who shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, reverse, alter or modify the order of the Munsif. The point urged by Mr. Patnaik can be fully canvassed in appeal. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. But the Court must always exercise discretion whether the jurisdiction should be exercised or not. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. In other words, in appeal it is open to Mr. Patnaik to contend that the inspection and recounting that has been permitted by the Munsif is not justified by law. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. In appeal the High Court took a different view. The Supreme Court examined the entire matter and came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of that case did not justify the order of the Tribunal allowing inspection. Accordingly, their Lordships upheld the judgment of the High Court quashing that order and expressed the view that it was unnecessary to further examine whether on recounting the appellant in that case had got more votes than the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case the counting had not been made. On recounting it may be that the petitioner before us may succeed before the Munsif. He had also taken a further point on the question of limitation. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr. Patnaik at a later stage. We do not consider that this is a fit case in which we should exercise our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution despite existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is only on this ground that we dismiss the writ application, but in the circumstances without costs. The stay order is vacated and the Munsif is directed to take steps for expeditious disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Acharya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Ori265',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Arjuna Pradhan',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '529033'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 38',
			(int) 2 => 'Constitution'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'G.K. Misra',
			(int) 1 => 'the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat',
			(int) 2 => 'The Munsif, Boudh',
			(int) 3 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 4 => 'the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act',
			(int) 5 => 'AIR 1964 SC',
			(int) 6 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
			(int) 7 => 'AIR 1970 SC 276',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 14 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Lordships',
			(int) 17 => 'the High Court'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2-6-1970',
			(int) 1 => '11-6-1970',
			(int) 2 => '31',
			(int) 3 => '4',
			(int) 4 => '10',
			(int) 5 => 'about 100',
			(int) 6 => 'About 300',
			(int) 7 => 'about 100',
			(int) 8 => '1',
			(int) 9 => '4',
			(int) 10 => '226',
			(int) 11 => '227'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1157',
			(int) 1 => '1126',
			(int) 2 => '1964',
			(int) 3 => '1249',
			(int) 4 => 'thirty days'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2',
			(int) 1 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 1 => 'Bird',
			(int) 2 => 'Ram Sewak Yadav',
			(int) 3 => 'Hussain Kamil Kidwai',
			(int) 4 => 'Jagjit Singh',
			(int) 5 => 'Kartar Singh',
			(int) 6 => 'Krishna Behari',
			(int) 7 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 8 => 'Law',
			(int) 9 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 10 => 'Patnaik',
			(int) 11 => 'J.6'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '529033',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Original Jur. Case No. 147 of 1971',
			'appellant' => 'Digambar Pradhan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan',
			'casenote' => ' - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation  Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law].  -  Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '(Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Patnaik, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S. Misra (2), Adv. and ;B. Das, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-12-07',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.K. Misra, C.J. and ;S. Acharya, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.K. Misra, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner and the opposite party contested for the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat. The election took place on 2-6-1970. The petitioner's case is that the results were published on 11-6-1970 and he was declared to be duly elected. The petitioner secured 1157 votes while the opposite party secured 1126 votes. There was thus a difference of 31 votes. The opposite party filed an application for inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. The Munsif, Boudh allowed the opposite party's application and directed inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. It is against this order dated 4-1-1971 that this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner contends that the opposite party did not plead the necessary material facts justifying the prayer for inspection and recounting. He refers to paragraph 10 of the election petition which runs thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That about 100 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner in the entire election have been illegally rejected. Although the petitioner's symbol 'Bird and its compartment' bore seal mark or marks yet the same were rejected on the ground that the seal was not clear or double. About 300 votes of the petitioner were rejected and out of the same about 100 votes of the petitioner have been rejected as aforesaid. The petitioner would be able to prove the aforesaid allegation when the petitioner's rejected ballot papers are produced in court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. He places reliance on AIR 1964 SC 1249 (Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai); AIR 1966 SC 773 (Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh) and AIR 1970 SC 276 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari) in support of the contention that unless material facts are pleaded the Court cannot make a fishing and roving enquiry and allow inspection and recounting of ballot papers. For reasons given hereunder we do not propose to express any opinion on the argument on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Under Section 38 (4) of the Act any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal before the District Judge having jurisdiction who shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, reverse, alter or modify the order of the Munsif. The point urged by Mr. Patnaik can be fully canvassed in appeal. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. But the Court must always exercise discretion whether the jurisdiction should be exercised or not. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. In other words, in appeal it is open to Mr. Patnaik to contend that the inspection and recounting that has been permitted by the Munsif is not justified by law. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. In appeal the High Court took a different view. The Supreme Court examined the entire matter and came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of that case did not justify the order of the Tribunal allowing inspection. Accordingly, their Lordships upheld the judgment of the High Court quashing that order and expressed the view that it was unnecessary to further examine whether on recounting the appellant in that case had got more votes than the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case the counting had not been made. On recounting it may be that the petitioner before us may succeed before the Munsif. He had also taken a further point on the question of limitation. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr. Patnaik at a later stage. We do not consider that this is a fit case in which we should exercise our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution despite existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is only on this ground that we dismiss the writ application, but in the circumstances without costs. The stay order is vacated and the Munsif is directed to take steps for expeditious disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Acharya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Ori265',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Arjuna Pradhan',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '529033'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 38',
		(int) 2 => 'Constitution'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'G.K. Misra',
		(int) 1 => 'the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat',
		(int) 2 => 'The Munsif, Boudh',
		(int) 3 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 4 => 'the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act',
		(int) 5 => 'AIR 1964 SC',
		(int) 6 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
		(int) 7 => 'AIR 1970 SC 276',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'AIR 1966 SC 773',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 14 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Lordships',
		(int) 17 => 'the High Court'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2-6-1970',
		(int) 1 => '11-6-1970',
		(int) 2 => '31',
		(int) 3 => '4',
		(int) 4 => '10',
		(int) 5 => 'about 100',
		(int) 6 => 'About 300',
		(int) 7 => 'about 100',
		(int) 8 => '1',
		(int) 9 => '4',
		(int) 10 => '226',
		(int) 11 => '227'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1157',
		(int) 1 => '1126',
		(int) 2 => '1964',
		(int) 3 => '1249',
		(int) 4 => 'thirty days'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2',
		(int) 1 => 'Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 1 => 'Bird',
		(int) 2 => 'Ram Sewak Yadav',
		(int) 3 => 'Hussain Kamil Kidwai',
		(int) 4 => 'Jagjit Singh',
		(int) 5 => 'Kartar Singh',
		(int) 6 => 'Krishna Behari',
		(int) 7 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 8 => 'Law',
		(int) 9 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 10 => 'Patnaik',
		(int) 11 => 'J.6'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '529033',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Original Jur. Case No. 147 of 1971',
		'appellant' => 'Digambar Pradhan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Digambar Pradhan Vs. Arjuna Pradhan',
		'casenote' => ' - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation  Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. The period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. It, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under Section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the Court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. No formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. The provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. Therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the Court. No specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 is necessary. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Md. Makubur Rahman, 1993 (2) GLR 430 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Smt Rita Devi, 1997(2) GLT 406, Approved. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Birendra Mohan De, 1995 (2) Gau LT 218 (DB) and Union of India v Smt Gita Banik, 1996 (2) GLT 246, are not good law].  -  Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '(Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Patnaik, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S. Misra (2), Adv. and ;B. Das, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-12-07',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.K. Misra, C.J. and ;S. Acharya, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.K. Misra, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner and the opposite party contested for the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat. The election took place on 2-6-1970. The petitioner's case is that the results were published on 11-6-1970 and he was declared to be duly elected. The petitioner secured 1157 votes while the opposite party secured 1126 votes. There was thus a difference of 31 votes. The opposite party filed an application for inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. The Munsif, Boudh allowed the opposite party's application and directed inspection and recounting of the rejected ballot papers. It is against this order dated 4-1-1971 that this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner contends that the opposite party did not plead the necessary material facts justifying the prayer for inspection and recounting. He refers to paragraph 10 of the election petition which runs thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'That about 100 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner in the entire election have been illegally rejected. Although the petitioner's symbol 'Bird and its compartment' bore seal mark or marks yet the same were rejected on the ground that the seal was not clear or double. About 300 votes of the petitioner were rejected and out of the same about 100 votes of the petitioner have been rejected as aforesaid. The petitioner would be able to prove the aforesaid allegation when the petitioner's rejected ballot papers are produced in court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mr. Patnaik contends that the aforesaid paragraph not only does not contain a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), but clearly states that material facts would be proved only after scrutiny of the ballot papers produced in court. He places reliance on AIR 1964 SC 1249 (Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai); AIR 1966 SC 773 (Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh) and AIR 1970 SC 276 (Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari) in support of the contention that unless material facts are pleaded the Court cannot make a fishing and roving enquiry and allow inspection and recounting of ballot papers. For reasons given hereunder we do not propose to express any opinion on the argument on merits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Under Section 38 (4) of the Act any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal before the District Judge having jurisdiction who shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, reverse, alter or modify the order of the Munsif. The point urged by Mr. Patnaik can be fully canvassed in appeal. Law is now well settled that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution even in relation to a case where there is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. But the Court must always exercise discretion whether the jurisdiction should be exercised or not. When we are satisfied that the aforesaid point can be canvassed adequately in appeal we do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. In other words, in appeal it is open to Mr. Patnaik to contend that the inspection and recounting that has been permitted by the Munsif is not justified by law. A direct case on the point is to be found in AIR 1966 SC 773. There the Tribunal directed inspection and on recounting it was found that the defeated candidate had obtained more votes than the successful candidate. In appeal the High Court took a different view. The Supreme Court examined the entire matter and came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of that case did not justify the order of the Tribunal allowing inspection. Accordingly, their Lordships upheld the judgment of the High Court quashing that order and expressed the view that it was unnecessary to further examine whether on recounting the appellant in that case had got more votes than the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case the counting had not been made. On recounting it may be that the petitioner before us may succeed before the Munsif. He had also taken a further point on the question of limitation. The net effect of the entire trial being gone into may result in the petitioner's success not necessitating the examination of the aforesaid question to be raised by Mr. Patnaik at a later stage. We do not consider that this is a fit case in which we should exercise our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution despite existence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is only on this ground that we dismiss the writ application, but in the circumstances without costs. The stay order is vacated and the Munsif is directed to take steps for expeditious disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Acharya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Ori265',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Arjuna Pradhan',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '529033'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 33, Section 38, Constitution

ORG: G.K. Misra, the Sarpanchship of Tileswar Grama Panchayat, The Munsif, Boudh, Patnaik, the Orissa Grama Panchavat Act, AIR 1964 SC, AIR 1966 SC 773, AIR 1970 SC 276, Court, Court, Court, AIR 1966 SC 773, Tribunal, the High Court, The Supreme Court, Tribunal, Lordships, the High Court

CARDINAL: 2-6-1970, 11-6-1970, 31, 4, 10, about 100, About 300, about 100, 1, 4, 226, 227

DATE: 1157, 1126, 1964, 1249, thirty days

PRODUCT: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

PERSON: Patnaik, Bird, Ram Sewak Yadav, Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Jagjit Singh, Kartar Singh, Krishna Behari, Patnaik, Law, Patnaik, Patnaik, J.6