Orissa Court March 1982 Judgments
Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Division, Dhenkanal Vs. Biswanat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori263
B.N. Misra, J. 1. This appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 thereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 10-10-1980 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaueswai in Title Suit No. 87 of 1980.2. The respondent is a contractor. The appellant had entrusted the work of 'Renovation to Kishore Sagar M.I.P.' to the respondent under Agreement No. 73/F.2 of 1973-74, In course of execution of the work, disputes arose between the parties and as per Clause 23 of the F.2agreement, the concerned Chief Engineer appointed an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator called for the statement of claims and counter-claims from both parties and finally passed an award for Rs. 98,501.00. This amount includes interest of Rs. 34,121.00. The Arbitrator's further direction Is that if the award was not paid up within three months from the date of its filing, interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount should be payabl...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidhar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori80
Das, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Majhiakhanda M. E. School in the district of Puri on 2-6-1970. His appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools. The reconstituted managing committee of the school which appointed the petitioner as teacher was quashed by the High Court in O. J. C. No. 730 of 1970 and the old managing committee started functioning. The High Court directed the D. I. of Schools to disburse the salary of the teachers for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Another person was appointed as a teacher in place of the petitioner by the old managing committee which started functioning again after the quashing of the reconstituted managing committee. But the petitioner has not been paid his dues as directed by the High Court in O. J. C. No. 318 of 1973 (Annexure-B). Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for directing opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay up his entire salary as per order of the High Court and according to Government rules regarding direct payment of...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Chakradhar Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ532
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The appeal. is by the State Government against a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Dhenkanai acquitting the two respondents of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 325/34 I.P.C.2. One Mahulik Naik of village - Nimidha had three sons, namely, Duryo Naik, Nakfodi Naik and Kulamani Naik. The three sons were separate since 1930, On 1R-6-52. Nakfodi and Kulamani sold one acre of land appertaining to plot Nos. 2110 and 2112 to one Kalyan Sahu of Raibania Duryo had not sold his share out of that land. Kalyan took possession of the land purchased by him and remained in possession of the same till 1972. In 1973, Duryo Naik started creating trouble and demanded his right over a portion of plot No. 2110 : On 4-11-1974, Duryo Naik cut paddy crops from the land. Ramesh Sahu, son of Kalyan Sahu lodged a report at the police station about this incident and a station diary entry was made. The police warned Duryo Naik not to interfere with the possession of Kalyan Sahu. In 1...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Works Department, Govt. of Orissa and ors. Vs. Ghanashyam S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori166; 53(1982)CLT586
B.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 13-11-1981 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in O. Section No. 62 of 1981-1.2. The respondent is a contractor. Appellant No. 3 had entrusted him with the construction work of the road to connect the capital at Bhubaneswar with the University. Appellant No. 3 and the respondent entered into an agreement --vide Agreement No. 10-F-2 of 1973-74. Disputes arose between the parties and as appellant No. 2 failed to appoint an Arbitrator as per Clause 23 of the Agreement the respondent moved the Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge appointed an Arbitrator in Misc. Case No. 210 of 1979. The Arbitrator called for the statement of claims and counter-claims from the parties and finally made an award of Rupees 1,82,637.72 p. in favour of the respondent as against...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori176; 54(1982)CLT315
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The State Government by a Notification dated 5th March, 1974 dereserved an area of 749.32 hectares as also another area of 142 hectares within the Tomka-Daitari area and following such dereservation the petitioner made two separate applications under the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') for grant of mining leases in his favour for the entire dereserved area on 16-4-74. When the State Government failed to pass any order within the statutory period contemplated under Rule 24 of the Rules, the petitioner filed revisions against such deemed rejection under Rule 54. On 29-9-75 the revision applications were allowed in the following terms:--'(a) The deemed rejection by the State Government of the application for mineral concession that the petitioner had made is hereby set aside only so as to enable the State Government to pass final and speaking orders on merits thereupon; (b) The State Government is hereby directed to pass such fi...
Tag this Judgment!South Eastern Roadways Vs. Satyanarayan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori167; 53(1982)CLT451
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This is a tenant's application challenging the affirming appellate order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, in a proceeding for eviction from the tenanted premises. Challenge is on the ground that the premises in question belonged to 3 co-owners but the application for eviction had been filed by only one of them, being opposite party No. 1. He had soughtfor eviction on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The two other co-sharers having two-third share, being opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively, did not support the claim for eviction. On the other hand, they seated that they did not want eviction of the tenant and pleaded that they had been receiving the rent. The Controller passed an order of eviction by holding that there was default and that order of eviction has been sustained in appeal. That is how the tenant has filed this application challenging the order of eviction.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner relying...
Tag this Judgment!V. Appa Rao and Etc. Vs. Revenue Officer, Chatrapur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori206; 53(1982)CLT467
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Three landholders are petitioners in these applications, each one being by one such landholder. Ceiling areas were carved out in the proceedings under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Steps were taken by the Revenue Officer to fix up compensation for the ceiling surplus land as provided under Section 47 of the Act. In these cases we are concerned with the valuation of standing trees on lands. Section 47 (2) (b) has a statutory formula for determining market value of trees standing on the surplus lands and an Explanation attached to the section indicates that in determining the market value, the Revenue Officer shall as far as practicable be guided by the provisions contained in Sub-section (1)' of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Keeping the aforesaid provisions of the statute in view, the Revenue Officer by his order dated 28-11-1978 determined the quantum of compensation admissible under Section 47 (2) (b) of the Act. About a year after...
Tag this Judgment!Jagabandhu Roul and Brothers Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC407(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, C. J. 1. On the assessee's application under Section 24(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), this Court directed the Sales Tax Tribunal to state a case and refer the following common question for opinion of the court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was legally right to uphold the penalty when the quarterly return showing taxable turnover as 'nil' had been filed within the due date? 2. The assessee is a registered dealer. We are concerned with quarters ending 30th June, 1971, 30th September, 1971, 31st December, 1971, 31st, March, 1972, 30th June, 1972, 30th September, 1972, 31st December, 1972, and 31st March, 1973. Returns for most of the quarters had been filed in time excepting the quarters ending 30th June, 1972, and 31st March, 1973, where there was a delay of one day each. The annual returns for 1972 and 1973 had, however, not been furnished. In these returns, though...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammed Saffique Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ535
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the trial and appellate courts against the petitioner to the effect that by his rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. ORP 2045 on March 17, 1972, it dashed against Fakira Swain coming on the road between Pipili and Sakhigopal riding on his bicycle by observing the rules of the road keeping left for which Fakir Swain succumbed to the injuries and the bus then fell into a ditch causing injuries to some of its inmates. The petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the I.P.C. and his conviction in respect of the three offences recorded by the trial court has been maintained by the learned appellate Judge who has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months for each of these three offences concurrently. To establish its case, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses at the trial. The case of the petitioner was that he had been d...
Tag this Judgment!Kari Khuntia and ors. Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori181; 53(1982)CLT541
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. Five petitioners have jointly filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act wherefor is dated 5-7-1978 published in the Orissa Gazette on 27-7-1978. The petitioners contend that acquisition proceedings in regard to the lands given in Schedules A, A-1 and A-2 of the writ application are vitiated on account of:--(i) Want of clear description of the property sought to be acquired as parts of the whole plots were notified: (ii) No notice of hearing Under Section 5A of the Act was served on the petitioners and no opportunity of being heard was extended to them; (iii) Notification Under Section 6 of the Act shows that an area of 0.865 decimals was sought to be acquired out of 0.381 decimals in plot No. 1490. Such a glaring mistake is indicative of non-application of mind; and (iv) Acquisition wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »