Orissa Court July 1982 Judgments
Bairagi Ch. Das Vs. Kartik Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ori272; 54(1982)CLT298
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J. 1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Bhadrak, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to decide the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. 2. Brief facts leading to the application are: Opposite Party No. 1 filed a suit for partition on the basis of his purchase under sale deed dated 16-1-70 from defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 4 mainly contested the suit claiming to have purchased the entire two decimals under sale deed dated 15-4-68, According to the said defendant, Gura (defendant No. 2) was not the daughter of Hadi Das and Jema as alleged by the plaintiff and sister of Makari, his vendor, His specific case was that Gura was the daughter of one Rama Das and had no connection with the family of Hadi Das. So, the purchase of the plaintiff was from an imposter. It was further alleged that in a previous suit filed by one Minki which was being contested by Gura, an issue was raised as to...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Gangaram Chhapolia and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT214
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. Disputes in relation to the work 'FDR to Nabuda Ringh Bundha at Ranpal' undertaken by the opposite party No. 1 -- contractor under agreement No. 51 F-2 of 1968-60 having arisen, the contractor issued notice following the arbitration clause in the contract for appointment of an arbitrator. On failure of the Chief Engineer to appoint arbitrator, the contractor moved the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The learned Subordinate Judge by judgment dated 10-2-1982 in Misc. Case No. 387 of 1980 granted the prayer and directed the parties to suggest names by 12-2-82 for selection of the personnel. On 12-2-82, the contractor filed a panel of names and the petitioners submitted in a memorandum that any member of the arbitration tribunal might be appointed as arbitrator. The learned Subordinate Judge, thereupon, appointed Sri R. C. Kar, a retired District Judge, and one from the panel of names submi...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Allied Construction Company
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT363
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. These two revisions arise out of orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore, rejecting the two applications filed by the petitioners for removal of the arbitrator.2. The opposite party entered into agreements with the petitioner, namely, contract No. 20 of 1971-72 and contract No. 7 of 1971-72 for construction of storage and residential quarters at Chan-dipur in the district of Balasore. Disputes having arisen. Original Suits Nos. 36 of 1974 and 37 of 1974 were filed under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The applications were allowed and an engineer was appointed to act as arbitrator. Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 9 of 1977 and 10 of 1977 were filed in this Court. The challenge was relating to the personnel of the arbitrator. In para 3 of the Judgment of this Court, disposing of both the appeals in a common judgment, it has been held:--''It is not disputed that a notice for reference of the dispute to arbitration ha...
Tag this Judgment!Raibari Behera Vs. Mangaraj Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT566; 1983CriLJ125
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for maintenance made against the opposite party, her husband, under Section 125, Criminal p. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), on the sole ground of paucity of evidence indicating that the petitioner was unable to maintain herself, she has come to this Court in revision for relief against the order passed, as submitted before me on her behalf by Mr. Das, on a point of view based on a mere technicality and not on the facts and evidence entitling her to claim maintenance and the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party by Mr. Bohidar is that in view of her own evidence that she had been having business and maintaining herself, the order against the petitioner could not be called in question.2. Admittedly, the opposite party married the petitioner about three decades ago and a daughter, born through their wedlock, was married. After such a long married life, the opposite party chose to...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Dhal and ors. Vs. Jairam Sethi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT498; 1982CriLJ2144
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order of conviction passed against them under Section 379 of the I.P.C. with a sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days, passed against each of them, by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, in I. C. C. No. 281 of 1977 Trial Case No. 1149 of 1977 for committing theft of fish from the tank in the possession of the opposite party on March 27, 1977.2. Mr. S. Mohapatra for the petitioners has not challenged the findings of facts recorded by the trial court, but has submitted that for the alleged commission of the same offence, the petitioners had been tried earlier in I. C. C. No. 88 of 1977 Trial Case No. 456 of 1977 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak and they had been acquitted under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), although the learned Magistrate had wrongly passed an order o...
Tag this Judgment!Jatani Dei Vs. Udayanath Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori252
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the appellate decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Section 4, Partition Act, reversing the decree granted by the Munsif, Bhubaneswar.2. Raghunath Jena, the original owner, died 16 or 17 years back leaving behind Bela (defendant 2), the widow and Jatani (plaintiff) and Ratani (defendant 3), the daughters. The plaintiff married one Kulamani and Kulamani and the plaintiff lived with Bela in the residential house left behind by Raghunath. It is alleged that on 19-8-1975 under a registered sale deed the widow sold the residential house to defendant 1. The sale deed is assailed as nominal and fraudulent. It has further been asserted that defendant 1 being a stranger, the plaintiff was entitled to get the property reconveyed under Section 4 Partition Act. The cause of action for the suit is alleged to be the threats of defendant 1 to dispossess the plaintiff.3. Defendants 2 and 3 sup...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Prathamakhandi Labour Contract Co-operative Societ ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori254
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J. 1. During the pendency of an arbitration proceeding, an application was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, for removal of the arbitrator on ground of misconduct. This revision has been filed against the rejection of the said application.2. Mainly on three grounds the application for removal of the arbitrator was made. Firstly, the arbitrator refuseds to decide the question of limitation as a preliminary issue; secondly the arbitrator did not state a special case for the opinion of the court under Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act and thirdly, the arbitrator misconduct ed himself in denying adequate opportunity to the petitioner and had been biased towards the opposite party.3. It is well settled that in adjudication of a lis, a court or tribunal shall follow the procedure prescribed. Where no procedure has been prescribed, it shall devise its own procedure which is in consonance with justice, equity and good conscience. That is to say, a p...
Tag this Judgment!Shantimanl Dei Vs. Lingaraj Moharana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-05-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1567
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant was the complainant and the respondent were the accused persons in the trial court, the respondent No. 1 Lingarai being charged under Section 494 of the Penal Code and the other respondents being charged under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. The case of the appellant was that she married the respondent No. 1 in 1970, but during the subsistence of her marriage, the respondent No. 1 married the respondent No. 3 in the month of Magh of the year 1975 and the other respondents had abetted the commission of the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code. At the trial besides examining herself as P. W. 1, the appellant had placed reliance on the evidence of four other witnesses. The case of the respondents was one of denial and false implication. They had not examined any witness on their behalf. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court came to find that the charges had not been established against the respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›