Orissa Court July 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dhrubajyoti Chatterjee Vs. Dila Mukherjee
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori93; 46(1978)CLT359
N.K. Das, J.1. Appellant is the husband of the respondent. He filed the suit for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant and for custody of the child born out of their wedlock, under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act.2. The case of the plaintiff is that his marriage with the respondent took placeon 21-2-69 according to the prevailing custom in their community. The consummation of marriage took place at Puri where the residence of the appellant is situated. On the 8th day of their marriage, the respondent and the appellant went to Chandannagar (father's place of the respondent) but the respondent did not return with the appellant on the plea that she would continue her studies. She remained there till July, 1969 but did not resume her studies. After a lot of persuasions the respondent returned and stayed with the appellant till 22-5-70 at Bhobaneswar. During her stay at Bhubaneswar the respondent conceiv-ed and on the third month of pregnancy she loft for Chandannagar where ...
Satyabadi Naik Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori8; 46(1978)CLT267
R.N. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff has appealed against the affirming judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Jeypore upholding dismissal of his suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession.2. Plaintiff alleged that he had purchased 86 decimals of land out of plot No. 57 in Mauza Kaki under a registered sale deed dated 28-11-1970 (Ext. 2) for a consideration of Rs. 2,580/- after obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act from one Dalapati Hantal. Dalapati had purchased the property from Hadi Hantal and Laxman Hantal in Feb., 1969. Plaintiff has remained in possession of the property following his acquisition and had constructed an asbestos-roofed house thereon. On 14-4-1972, the Additional Tahsildar of Sunabeda initiated a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, on the allegation that the land in question had...
Kastura Sahuani Vs. Das Seth and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori60; 46(1978)CLT227
S. Acharya, J.1. Defendant No. 2 has preferred this appeal against the decision of the District Judge. Bolangir-Kalahandi in so far as it relates to Title Appeal No. 47 of 1973.2. One Laxman Sahu died after coming into effect, of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Defendant No. 1 is the son and defendant No. 2 is the widow of the said Laxman Sahu. Defendant No. 1 executed the registered sale deed Ext. 1 dated 10-1-1966 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac. 2.16 of land out of the properties which devolved on him and his mother, defendant No. 2, on the death of his father. The above facts are not disputed.3. The plaintiff's case in short is that :Defendant No. 1 succeeded to the properties of his father after the death of Laxman and he (D. 1) remained in possession of the same and was functioning as the karta and manager of the said joint family properties. Defendant No. 1, for legal necessity of the family as well as for the benefit of the estate, sold the suit land (Ac. 2.16), des...
State of Orissa Vs. Builders Union Engineers and Contractors
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori34; 46(1978)CLT204
ORDERR.N. Misra, J. 1. These applications by the State of Orissa are directed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in several execution cases.2. The decree-holder-opposite party, 4 firm of contractors, had undertaken the construction of certain portions of the Buria Medical College Hospital under F-2 contracts and disputes having arisen between the State and the contractor, the same had been referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause in the contracts. There were five deputes inall and five awards were passed for different amounts of claim. The awards were almost in similar terms and, inter alia, stipulated:--'..... I hereby direct the oppositeparty-defendant do pay the same amount of ..... to the claimant-plaintiffwithin a period of thirty days (30 days) from today ..... and in case the opposite party-defend ant fails to pay the said amount to the claimant-plaintiff within the aforesaid date, the opposite party-defend ant will pay interest at the rate of n...
M.P. Swami Vs. Mangaram Agarwalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori11; 46(1978)CLT197
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The second appeal is by the defendant against a decree of affirmance arising out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of house rent.2. The plaintiff's case was that the suit house was let out to the defendant in the month of July, 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15, but the defendant failed to pay the rent from May, 1972 despite repeated requests and did not vacate the house despite service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy with effect from 31st October, 1973.3. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the suit house and denied that he was a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the same.4. The learned Munsif decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house, that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the same, that he was in arrears of house rent from May, 1972 and that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tena...
Pandab Panigrahi and ors. Vs. Mst. Laxmi Misrani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori64; 46(1978)CLT215
R.N. Misra, J.1. Defendants have appealed against the decree given by the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur declaring plaintiff's title to the 'B' Sch. property and recovery of possession through court thereof.2. One Banamali was the common ancestor of the parties. He has three sons being Basudeb, Durga Prasad and Debi Prasad, Basudeb died sometime in 1928 while the other two died in 1952 and 1953 respectively. On. 5-7-1933' under a registered deed of partition to which Kali Prasad. Durga Prasad and Debi Prasad were parties, each party was given one-third share in Banamali's properties. In the same partition, the one third share allotted to Durga Prasad was sub-divided between himself and (his) only son Bhabani (defendant No. 12) each getting one-sixth share. The onesixth share allotted to Durga Prasad is the 'Kha' schedule property of the partition deed and the property in Bhabani's share was shown in 'Ga' schedule thereof. After the partition, Durga Prasad acquired certain more ...
Panu Saboto Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: 46(1978)CLT192; 1979CriLJ512
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The petitioner stands convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for contravening the provisions of Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order'), and he has been sentenced thereunder to Rule 1 for 3 months.2. The prosecution case against the petitioner in short is that he on 1-1-1972 had stored 24 bags of rice, each weighing 101 Kgs., in the truck No. ORK 1803, and was transporting the same without having any authority or licence for the same. P. W. 1, the Inspector of Supplies, checked the truck when it was found standing at the Brahmanigan check gate facing towards Orkel village in Koraput district.3. The petitioner in his defence contended that the stock of rice in the truck did not belong to him. According to him he and some other persons were transporting 5 bags of rice each in thai truck and he alone was travelling in the said truck as the drive...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajrishi Mineral Industries
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Ori88; 46(1978)CLT237
R.N. Misra, J.1. These two appeals under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are directed against two separate decisions of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack allowing the applications under Section 20 of the Act and directing the defendant-appellant to file the Arbitration Agreement for a reference of the disputes to arbitration.2. Messrs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') are holders of a chromite mine located at Sukinda and a dolomite mine in the district of Sundergarh-- both within the State of Orissa. Plaintiff-respondent in these-appeals is a firm of contractors registered under the Indian Part-tier-ship Act of 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Firm'). On 8-2-1969, an agreement was entered into between the Company and the Firm (Ext. H) initially for a period of 13 months from February, 1969, but the same had been extended up to Feb., 1973, whereunder, the Firm undertook to do mining,...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›