Orissa Court May 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.
Manbodh Biswal and ors. Vs. Samaru Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-20-1980
Reported in: 50(1980)CLT142; 1980CriLJ1023
ORDERR.N. Misra, J.1. Petitioners, four in number, were convicted under Sections 323 and 504, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 70/- on the first count and Rs. 40/- under the second count with default sentence of imprisonment therefor by a Magistrate First Class at Sambalpur. Their appeal having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this revision application has been filed challenging the convictions.2. Several contentions have been raised in the revision petition which seem to be essentially factual. I have not been impressed by these contentions and I do not think it appropriate to interfere with the conviction on those grounds.3. One contention which has a legal colour may, however, be examined. Admittedly the case was triable by summons procedure. Reliance is placed on Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, which provides:When in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he i...
Binoy Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori13; 50(1980)CLT204
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation on 24th June, 1978 and he assumed charge of the said office on 28th June, 1978. The tenure of office of the Chairman was three years from the date of appointment as provided under Rule 4 of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1967. On 18th April, 1980, the Government of Orissa amended the said rule by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (Amendment) Rules, 1980 which reduced the tenure of office from three years to one year and as a result, appointment of the petitioner stood terminated on 25th April, 1980. The petitioner's contention is that the amended rule is retrospective in effect and the State Government was not competent to make a rule with retrospective effect. He seeks issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (Amendment) Rules, 1980 -- Annexure 3.2. The stand taken by the State Government is that the amende...
Hansraj Kooverji Rathor Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori184; 50(1980)CLT68
Das, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his right of occupancy in respect of the property in dispute and for injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the said property and for further declaration that the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the property, inasmuch as the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act are not applicable.2. The property in question stands recorded in settlement in the name of one Banchhanidhi Sahu who had occupancy right in the same by virtue of his purchases in the year 1921-22 from different persons who had also occupancy right therein. Banchhanidhi subsequently acquired a small share of proprietary interest in the suit Touzi to the extent of 10 Pies and 16 Krantis. In the year 1930, Banchhanidhi mortgaged the disputed land along with other undisputed occupancy holdings as well as his proprietary interest to one Raghu Karsan. In 1935, said Raghu Karsan purchased the entire mortgaged propert...
Dambarudhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori188; 50(1980)CLT119
Das, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for declaration that the agreement dated 25-9-64 executed by the plaintiff in respect of Dadar Plantation Coupe No. II, Divisional Plot No. 79 in Khariar Forest Division is invalid in the eye of law and not binding against the plaintiff and for further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 9,328 towards damages either from defendant No. 1 or from defendants Nos. 2 to 25.2. Plaintiff's case is that the D.F.O,, Khariar Division published a notice for sale of forest produce of the aforesaid coupe for the year 1964-65. Auction was held on 25-9-64 and the bid of the plaintiff was the highest for Rs. 10,000. This bid was accepted and an agreement was executed between the D.F.O. and theplaintiff on the same day, i..e. 25-9-64. The total extent of the coupe was 45 acres which was specified in a sketch map and attached to the said agreement (Ext. 1). As per the agreement, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards the se...
Bansidhar Mohanty Vs. the United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori193; 50(1980)CLT578
ORDERR.N. Misra, J. 1. The third defendant in T. M.S. 265 of 1969 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack is the petitioner. Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has filed the suit asking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,86,331.01 paise from defendants 1, 2 and 4 on the basis of a cash credit and/or overdraft facility under which the defendant No. 1-Company had been allowed to draw money from the bank. Initially the limit was for Rs. 3 lakhs which from time to time was extended and in June, 1969, the limit was fixed at Rs. 10 lakhs. While the defendant No. 1-Company, defendants 2 and 4 are two of its directors who according to the plaintiff had made themselves liable for the entire loan. Plaintiff also prayed for a decree up to Rs. 9 lakhs within the aforesaid amount against defendants 3 and 5--being two other directors of the defendant No.1-Company on the basis of guarantees. 2. Three separate written statements were filed one by defendant No. 2, another by defendants 3 and 5 togeth...
Jagannath Sahoo and ors. Vs. Labanya Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Ori12; 50(1980)CLT219
ORDERS. Acharya, J.1. The plaintiffs' suit, as originally filed, is for permanent injunction against the defendants by declaring that the suit property is 'the communal property of the Sahi of the plaintiffs' and for costs. After the evidence on behalf of both the parties was recorded and argument in part was heard a petition for amendment of the prayer portion of the plaint was filed by the plaintiffs in the court below. That petition having been rejected, this Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiffs.2. The amendment prayed for is as follows:--After the prayer (a) of the plaint it be added;'that the records obtained by fraud by the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest are not binding on the plaintiffs.' The court below has held that by allowing such an amendment the nature and character of the original suit will be changed, a new issue is to be framed for deciding the facts alleged in the said portion for which there is no material on record, and that there is no evid...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›