Orissa Court November 1980 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.
Pratap Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori47; 51(1981)CLT24
Misra, Ag. C.J. 1. Petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is one of the sons of late Raja Sri Hrudaya Chandra Birabar Harichandan of Talcher -- an ex-State --which merged with the Province of Orissa with effect from 1-1-1948 and became a part of this State in due course. Raja Hrudaya Chandra died on 11-9-1970. Petitioner claims that upon the death of his father, his elder brother Soubhagya has been accepted as the Raja of the erstwhile State. Under the customary law prevailing in the ex-State of Talcher, junior members and relations of the Raja family were not entitled to claim partition but were entitled to maintenance grants known as 'kharposh allowance' which after being granted became a charge on the revenue of the State, According to the petitioner such customs acknowledged in the 'Pachis Sawal' --an authority relating to practice and custom in the erstwhile eastern States -- has also been judicially accepted. Petitioner claimed such kharposh grant fr...
Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Indian Metal ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori76; 51(1981)CLT55
ORDERN.K. Das, J. 1. The defendant in a proceeding under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act challenges the decision of the trial Court on the question of jurisdiction which was decided as a preliminary issue. 2. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for sale of silicon by the plaintiff to the defendant. As difference arose in respect of the contract i.e. regarding payment and other ancillary matters, the plaintiff filed the case for reference of the disputes for arbitration by virtue of the arbitration clause in the contract. Besides other objections, the defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhubaneswar in entertaining the suit. It is contended that the agreement was negotiated, concluded and finally accepted at New Delhi and no part of the cause of action in respect of the dispute arose at Bhubaneswar. The matter came up before this Court in Civil Revision No. 510/77 which was remanded to the trial Court with direction to take evidence as to whe...
Gourahari Mohanty Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ535
ORDERJ.K. Mohanty, J.1. Petitioner was convicted under Section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, (hereinafter called the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three months by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nowrangapur. Against the order of conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore and the same having been dismissed the petitioner has come up in revision against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows: Petitioner is a petty shop-keeper. On 10th September 1975 at about 6 P. M. on the authority of a search warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nowrangapur P. W. 3, an Inspector, under Regulation 2 of 1968, along with P. W. 7, an Executive Magistrate, and P. W. 6 searched the house of the petitioner. During search they recovered some pledged articles and 23 Modaks from a self longing on a wall. P. W. 7, the Executive Magistrate, thereafter sent for the Exc...
Rajkishore Misra Vs. Bhikari Misra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori48; 51(1981)CLT38
N.K. Das, J.1. Defendant No. 1 has appealed against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect ofA. 0.12 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 1387 of Khata No. 159 in Mauza Bira-Pratappur, District Puri, consisting of house site with garden.2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 2 purchased the suit property by Ext. 1 dated 17-8-1925 from one Govinda Jena. Defendant No. 2 was in exclusive possession of the property and sold the same to the plaintiff under Ext. 6 dated 17-3-1972. After purchase, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit land and possessed the same. As obstruction was created by defendant No. 1 in the 'enjoyment of the suit property, the suit was filed.2. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement has contended that the disputed property is the joint family property of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the family partition, the suit property fell to the share of defendant No. 1. The suit property was also p...
Hari Charan Das Babaji Vs. Adhikari Baishnab Charan Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori78; 51(1981)CLT12
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. Challenge in these two writ applications is to an order of the learned Commissioner of Endowments deciding a dispute regarding succession to hereditary trusteeship of a temple under the provisions of Section30 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Both the writ applications have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Admittedly, the institution of Shri Jagannath and Shri Gopinath Mahaprabhu at Mathura under Kodala Tahasil in the district of Ganjam is a temple managed by hereditary trustees. One Rama Krushna Das was the hereditary trustee of the temple and after his death, his chela Banamali Das became the hereditary trustee, Banamali Das by a document dated 18-3-1971 nominated the petitioner as his chela. But by a subsequent document dated 5-3-1973 he cancelled the nomination. He died on 21-12-1974. After his death, a dispute arose between the petitioner and O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 as t...
Dinabandhu Panda and ors. Vs. Kulamani Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori158; 50(1980)CLT586
N.K. Das, J. 1. The opposite parties in a proceeding under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 are in appeal against a concurrent decision. Their case is for declaration that Billoma Thakurani, Mangomea Thakurani and Sri Nilakantheswar Mahadeb of village Samagol are public deities, as envisaged under the Act and the properties described in the schedule consist of religious endowment of the said deities. The Sandhu Raja family of Kujans installed the deities and endowed the schedule lands for the Seva Puja and maintenance of the deities. The Raja of Burdwan took over the Kujang estate in a public auction and he was recorded as the Marfatdar of the deities. When the Zamindari was abolished in 1951, the Raja of Burdwan no longer looked after the Seva Puja of the deities and since then the Hindu public are managing the Seva Puja. Opposite Party No. 2 was a Sevak of the deities on salary basis and he was performing the Seva Puja and managing the affairs of the deit...
Raghunath Tripathy Vs. Dibakar Tripathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori50; 51(1981)CLT28
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This civil revision has been preferred by defendant No. 1 against an order rejecting his application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C.2. Opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff brought Title Suit No. 59 of 1971 in the court of the Munsif, Kendrapara for a declaration of his right of way over plot No. 56 for going into and coming out of his homestead plot No. 44, for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 'from obstructing the plaintiff's right of way and for a mandatory injunction commanding defendant No. 1 to demolish the constructions raised by him on a portion of the suit land.3. The stand taken by the petitioner was that he along with his co-sharers had taken lease of 0.03 acre of land out of the suit plot from the ex-landlord in the name of defendant No. 2 Daitari Tripathy who was then karta o'f the family. After family partition in the year 1948 the said 0.03 acre of land fell to the share of defendant No. 2 Daitari Tripathy and one Sara Dibya. Subs...
Kanhei Pradhan Vs. Basanti Khati
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1980
Reported in: 50(1980)CLT563; 1981CriLJ266
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. An order under Section 249 Cr. P.C. discharging the accused of an offence under Section 493 I.P.C. is under challenge in this revision.2. A complaint had been filed by the opposite party against the petitioner for an offence under Section 493 I.P.C. cm 8-2-79 the complainant was absent and a petition for adjournment was filed on her behalf. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the case was pending trial, rejected the petition for adjournment and since the case was a non-cognizable one, he discharged the accused in exercise of his powers under Section 249. Cr. P.C. An application in revision against that order was filed before the learned Sessions Judge of Sundargarh who set aside the order of discharge on the ground that the offence under Section 493 I.P.C. being non-compoundable, the provisions of Section 249 Cr, P.C. were not attracted. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner-accused has come up in revision.3. It is ur...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›