Orissa Court July 1981 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.
Vysyaraju Badarinarayana Moorty Raju Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori180; 52(1981)CLT249
Misra, C.J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order passed by the authority specified under Section 18-B of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939 (opposite party No. 3) as affirmed in appeal by the authority specified under Sub-section (6) thereof (opposite party No. 2).2. Petitioner is a registered moneylender under the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') carrying on business in Berhampur area within the district of Ganjam and in his certificate ofregistration bearing No. 40 of 1973, the amount specified was Rs. 13,25,000/-. The original Act underwent an amendment and by Orissa Act 54 of 1975, Section 18-B was inserted into the star tute. As far as relevant that section provided :--'(1) The State Government may, from time to time, by notification, require the money lenders or money lenders belonging to any class or carrying on business in any local area, to produce before such authority and ...
Republic of India Vs. Khagendranath Jha
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-1981
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT197; 1982CriLJ961
N.K. Das, J.1. The respondent in the Government Appeal and the appellant in the Criminal Appeal is the same person. For the sake of convenience he is referred to as 'accused'. The accused was the Agent, state Bank of India. Athgarh. He was charged Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Under Section 120-B I.P.C. on the allegation that he agreed with one person to cheat the State Bank of India and ultimately cheated the Bank and allowed undue pecuniary benefit to one Ramesh Chandra Rai Samant. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail. The accused was acquitted of the charge Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was convicted for offence Under Sections 477-A and 120-B of the IPC with sentence to undergo R. I. for two years on each count. The Government Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Appeal i...
State of Orissa Vs. Gokulachandra Kanungo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Ori160; 52(1981)CLT416
Das, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of judgments overruling the objections of the appellant and making the award of the arbitrator rule of the Court in matters of reference made to the arbitrator by the court.Plaintiff-respondent is a contractor and he entered into a contract with the State of Orissa for construction of high-level bridge over river Rusikulya on National Highway No. 5 in the district of Ganiam. The work was to be completed within thirty months from the date of the written order. As the work could not be completed within time, the contractor made claims which were referred to an arbitrator. 2. In M. A. No. 249/80, the facts are that a sum of Rs. 12.14 lakhs being the difference between the estimated cost and the tendered amount of the contractor for item No. 35 of the tender was to be deducted from the running bills up to the construction of deck level in phases and when the contractor would start pre-stressed concrete superstructure work, the said deducted amount woul...
State Vs. Durjodhan Parida
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1981
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT214; 1981CriLJ1671
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Employees' Provident fund Commissioner is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed , by Shri P. K. Panigrahi', Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cuttack, in a case under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds . Act.2. Prosecution alleged that the accused-respondent, the Employer, failed to make payment of the provident fund contribution amounting to Rs. 29.50 relating to the period September, 1975 to November, 1975. The prosecution alleged that the Employer Messrs Panda Workshop employed 38 workmen while the acoused took the, plea that it had no liability under the statute as the number of workmen was less than 20.Before the learned Magistrate, 2 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and some documents were marked as exhibits. No evidence oral or documentary'. was led by the defence. The learned Magistrate came to hold From order of P. K. Panigrahi, Judl. Magistrate 1st class. Cuttack, D/- 20-3-1978 that the I...
Damodar Majhi Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1981
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT192; 1981CriLJ1450
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner claims to be a political worker and seems to be involved in some pending criminal cases. He was in custody in 'some other case when a proceeding under Section 110, Cr.P.C. being Misc. I. No. 136 of 1981 came to be instituted on police report in Baliapal F. I.R. No. 15 of 1981 on 8-5-81. On that day while taking cognizance of the proceeding the learned Executive Magistrate directed,The delinquent is universally suspected in many cases and he is also B. C. of Baliapal P. S. and a habitual thief and law-breaker having no ostensible means of livelihood and is hazardous to the society.Therefore there is reason to believe that the delinquent by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. and is so desparate and dangerous so as to render him being at large without security hazardous to the community under Section 110 (a), (e) and (g) of the Cr.P.C.I do hereby require the delinquent be show cause why he should not be ordered to execu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›