Orissa Court August 1982 Judgments
Mahendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Snehalata Kar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori74
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision by the husband arises out of an order granting interim, maintenance to the wife and the child and the expenses of the proceeding on a petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The petitioner filed Original Suit No. 9 of 1981 under Section 13 of the Act for a decree for divorce. During the pendency of the proceeding, the opposite party filed an application for pendente life maintenance for her and her child and expenses of the proceeding. She alleged that the petitioner had neglected her and the child and as she had no income to support her and the child, maintenance pendente lite should be granted. Upon a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge directed payment of pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the wife and at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month to the child. A consolidated sum of Rs. 300/- was awarded towards expe...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar Naik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)2; 1983CriLJ299
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant, a Lance-naik in the First Battalion of the Orissa Military Police, Charbatia, has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code and under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act and the sentence of lite imprisonment imposed under the former and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed under the latter; the sentences directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that appellant Sudhakar was serving as a Lance-naik in the First Battalion of the Orissa Military Police Station at Charbatia and Maguni, the deceased, was working as a Havildar. The appellant was occupying the first floor of a block of quarters and the deceased was occupying the ground floor with his wife (P. W. 3), mother and a baby. Three other Sepoys were also occupying quarters on the ground floor. Some months prior to the date of occurrence, some cakes had been brought by the father-in-law of the appellant and were distributed amongst the oc...
Tag this Judgment!Jadumani Pradhan Vs. Sewaram Pansari and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori1; 54(1982)CLT352
P.K. Mohanti, Actg. C.J.1. This writ application is directed against an order under Section 25 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed by the Election Tribunal (District Judge, Sambalpur) declaring the petitioner's election to the office of the Chairman of Bargarh Municipality as invalid and directing the District Magistrate, Sambalpur to take measures for holding a fresh election.2. The material facts are these: Petitioner and opp. party No. 1 were candidates for election to the office of the Chairman of Bargarh Municipality scheduled to be held on 31-1-1979. Opposite Party No. 1 presented his nomination paper on 12-1-1979. At the scrutiny, petitioner raised an objection to the nomination of O. P. No. 1 on the ground that he suffered from the disqualification under Section 16 (1) (vi) of the Act. The Election Officer rejected the nomination paper of opp. party No. 1 recording his decision in that regard as follows:'Under Section 16 (1) (vi) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Panda and ors. Vs. Laxmidhar Panda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori121
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Anandapur, dismissing the objections raised by the petitioners in the final decree proceeding arising out of Title Suit No. 41 of 1952 in which a decree for partition on the basis of a petition of compromise had been passed allotting 7-annas share to the plaintiffs and 9-annas share to the defendants Nos. 1 to 5, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being the sons and the defendant No. 3 being the widow of late Dologobinda Panda and the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 being the sons of late Baidyanath Panda. 2. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 4 Gananath Panda made an application before the learned Subordinate Judge for a final decree. The plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 resisted it on the grounds that (a) the application was barred by limitation, (b) the legal representatives of the defendant No. 4 had no locus standi to initiate the final decree procee...
Tag this Judgment!Achuta and ors. Vs. Smt Bewa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT369; 1982CriLJ2349
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioners have made this application under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for quashing the criminal proceeding (I. C. C. No. '8 of 1979) pending in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharamgarh, instituted by the opposite party for theft by the petitioners and their father Golak Pradhan (now dead) of the crops raised by her in the year 1978 and the occurrence had allegedly taken place on Nov. 25 1978. The opposite party reported this occurrence to the police authorities and after the matter was investigated into, a final report was submitted. On the petition of complaint of the opposite party, cognizance of an offence of theft punishable under Section 379 of the Penal Code was taken and the petitioners were prosecuted. While according to the opposite party, prior to her marriage, her husband had adopted the deceased Golak Pradhan. the father of the three petitioners, a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Chandra Behera and ors. Vs. Ranital Rice Mill Co. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori77; 54(1982)CLT375
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Munsif, Bhadrak, rejecting an application for amendment of the written statements filed by defendants 1, 2 and 3.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession; in the alternative for recovery of possession and injunction. The suit properties are comprised in two Schedules 'A' and 'B' which originally belonged to the Behera family. Long before 1928, the members had amicably divided the property by partition by metes and bounds setting apart a tank and the road for common use. In view of the partition, in the record-of-rights of 1928, the property stood separately recorded as per the allotment.3. Schedule 'A' property passing through various hands in course of transactions ultimately reached the plaintiff who purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 7-1-1963.4. In regard to the 'B' schedule property, it is the plaint case that this property fell to the share of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramabatar Agarwalla Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT345; 1983CriLJ122
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against an order taking cognizance of an offence of abetment of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause (3) of the Orissa Petroleum Products (Sale by Dealers) Order, 1979.2. The gist of the prosecution case is that one B. Bhaskar Patra has a fuelling station at Muniguda who carries on business of sale or storage for purpose of sale of petroleum products to consumers. On 29-3-79, the Inspector of Supplies along with others suddenly inspected the business premises of the dealer around noon and found stationed one truck bearing number ORR 767 loaded with 14 barrels of diesel oil containing 2800 litres and one jeep bearing number MRB 403 loaded with two barrels containing 400 litres of high-speed diesel oil. It is said that the petitioner who was in the jeep could produce cash-memos in support of purchase of 2800 litres of diesel oil, but he could not produce any cash-memo in support of the 400 Hires ...
Tag this Judgment!Pabitra Swal Singh Vs. Smt. Manikya Debi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-09-1982
Reported in: 54(1982)CLT383; 1982CriLJ2352
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner, against whom an order of maintenance has been passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), assails the order dated 28-7-1981 passed by Mr. B.K. Patnaik Additional Sessions Judge. Berhampur, in the Criminal Revision preferred by him against the order of maintenance and I would quote below the impugned order:Memo of no instruction dated 24-1-1981 is sufficient to dispose of the Revision. The matter is unnecessarily dragging on since January 1981 particularly in view of the memo.The Revision is dismissed. No costs'. This application has been made for the exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.2. Mr. D. Pattnaik. the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and therefore, it was an illegal order for which the bar under Section 397(3) of th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. J.N. Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1982
Reported in: 52(1981)CLT451
B.K. Behera, J. 1. The State of Orissa is in appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, in Original Suit No. 179 of 1981-1 making an award in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,85,200 a rule of the court and decreeing the suit. The respondent had been entrusted with the work 'Distribution system of Nandini M.I.P.' and had entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer, M.I. Division, Phul-bani, under agreement No. 97 F-2 of 1974-75. As disputes arose between the parties, the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, appointed an Arbitrator who entered into the reference, called upon both the parties to put in their statements of claims and documents and after hearing the parties, made an award of Rs. 3,85,200 in favour of the respondent directing its payment within fifteen days from the date of the award and further directing that failing such payment, future interest on the amount awarded at six per cent per annum ...
Tag this Judgment!Hadu Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Radha Bewa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori4; 54(1982)CLT305
P.K. Mohanty, Actg. C.J.1. The Second Appealis by the defendants against a decree of affirmance. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff-respondent is the shebayat of the deity Ramachandi Thakurani installed at village Muktapur and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants appellants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the plaint schedule lands measuring 2.02 acres.2. The plaintiff's case was that one Krushna Mohapatra of village Nabaghanapur was the shebayat of the deity and was recorded as such in the settlement record of rights finally published in the year 1931. After his death, the shebayati right devolved on his son Hata Mohapatra who performed the sevapuja of the deity till he become old and infirm. As he had no son he made an oral gift of shebayati right in favour of his sister's son Purnanada Mohapatra who was one in the line of succession. He constructed a house for Purnananda at village Muktapur and entrusted the sevapuja of the deity ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »