Orissa Court September 1982 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.
Rajkishore Das and ors. Vs. Ghanashyam Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori42; 54(1982)CLT412
B.N. Misra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar. The plaintiff-respondent had filed O. S. No. 22 of 1974 (I) in the Court of the Musif, Bhubaneswar praying for restoration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of A. O. 10 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 2226 under Holding No. 158 (Hal plot No. 4772 Holding No. 499) of village Rajasa, P. S. Balipatna.2. The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands originally belonged to Mahant Harekrushna Das, father of defendant No. 1, who had Lakharaj Bahel proprietary interest, but was not in a position to make any use of the same. In the record of rights finally published in 1928 the suit lands were recorded in the name of Mahant Jayaram Das. The plaintiff's father was well-known to Mahant Harekrushna Das and was rendering various services to him. As such at his request in the year 1945 Mahant Harekrushna Das inducted the f...
Bhubaneswar Prasad Singh Deo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori159
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the decisions of the different authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the matter of fixation of ceiling surplus lands by issue of a writ of certiorari.2. Initially there were two separate ceiling surplus proceedings under Section 42 of the Act--one against petitioner's mother Smt. Soubhagya Manjari Devi and the other against the petitioner, but later, the Revenue Officer dropped the proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned and in a single proceeding, the entire property belonging to the petitioner and his mother was taken into consideration. By his order dated 11-11-1976 (Annexure 1), the Revenue Officer stated:--'......... But I hold that Bhubaneswar Prasad Singh Deo (petitioner) being unmarried (though living in separate mess) should be included as a member of his mother Smt. Soubhagya Manjari Devi's family. Soubhagya Manjari Devi is en...
Ratan Kharsel and ors. Vs. Basan Bag and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori149
B.N. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh. Plaintiff No. 1 is the brother, plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the son and daughter respectively and defendant No. 3 is the Widow of the late Dhanu Kharsel. Defendants 1 and 2 are strangers to the family being purchasers of the suit lands. The plaintiffs' case is that the late Dhanu Kharsel and plaintiff No. 1 were the jointly recorded tenants of Khata No, 40 of village Dangarpara and the lands including the suit lands comprised in Khata No. 40 are the joint properties of the late Dhanu Kharsel and plaintiff No. 1. The suit lands are locally known as Bagmara Bhag. After Dhanu Kharsel's death his right and interest devolved on plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs were always in possession of the suit lands, but in the year 1967-68 defendants 1 and 2 created trouble and declared that they had the right to possess the suit lands having purchased the same fr...
Niranjan SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori10
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against the holding of the learned subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, that the application for removal of the arbitrator was not entertainable by him, as the appointment was made by the Supreme Court.2. The petitioner had entered into agreement No. 18 F-2 of 1971-72 for execution of the work. 'Renovation of Madansila M.I.P.' Disputes and differences between the parties having arisen, the petitioner called upon the Chief Engineer. Irrigation, to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. The Chief Engineer having failed to appoint, an application was filed under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' hereafter) for appointment of an arbitrator and the learned subordinate Judge in Misc. Case No. 378 of 1979 appointed Shri B.S. Patnaik, a retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator. Some time later, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 33 of the Act challenging the existence of arbitration agreem...
Biharilal Agarwala Vs. Ramesh Kumar Rath and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori45; 54(1982)CLT549
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against an order directing abatement of a proceeding under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil P. C. for getting aside an ex parte decree.2. Opposite Parties 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1972 for a declaration that they and opposite party No. 4 (pro forma defendant No. 2) and one Parbati (pro forma defendant No. 3) had right title and interest in the suit property and for confirmation of possession of the aforesaid person and in the alternative for recovery of possession in case they were found to be dispossessed.3. After a chequered career the suit was posted for hearing on 19-9-78. As the defendants did not appear when the suit was called on for hearing, ex parte hearing was taken up and the ex parte decree was passed on 22-9-78 declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The ordering portion runs thus:--'the suit is decreed ex parte against the defendant No. 1 with cost and against others without costs as no relief claim...
Nilamadhaba Nanda and ors. Vs. Orissa University of Agriculture and Te ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori17; 54(1982)CLT429
Patnaik. J.1. The petitioners seek the quashing of the order dated 14-1-1982 (Annexure-4) passed by the Dean of College of Agriculture of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology debarring them from taking the second semester final examination of Fourth Year B. Sc. (Ag.) class and issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to hold the examination in respect of the papers which they could not take onaccount of Annexure-4.2. The four petitioners are students of the Final Year B. Sc. (Ag.) of the College of Agriculture of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology. By the notice (Annexure-1), the students were intimated that the hourly and practical examination of the 4th Year B. Sc. (Ag.) would be held from Jan. 11, 1982 to Jan. 13, 1982, and the final examination was to be held from Jan. 14, 1982 to Jan. 21, 1982. The examination was originally scheduled to commence from Jan. 4, 1982 but shifting was necessitated on account of the session of the 3rd Indian Agric...
State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Civien Construction Co. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori48; 54(1982)CLT456
ORDERR.N. Misra, C.J. 1. The plaintiffs in an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar are petitioners. 2. Opposite Party No. 1, a firm of contractors had undertaken construction of the Orissa Bhawan at New Delhi on behalf of the State of Orissa under a written agreement and the lump sum amount had been stipulated at Rupees 23,34,000/-. The work is said to have begun in Feb., 1977, but in Sept., 1979 the State Government rescinded the contract and levied liquidated damages of Rs. 46,68,000/-. The contractor served a notice under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act on the Chief Engineer concerned and demanded that the disputes indicated in the notice be referred for arbitration. The Chief Engineer had not taken any action on the notice when on behalf of the State and the Executive Engineer an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar. On 15-12-1979 t...
Madhusudan Dhal Vs. Gaya Prasad Giri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ori153; 54(1982)CLT387
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (t) of the Civil P. C. challenging the order dated 5-8-78 of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj, refusing to re-admit Title Appeal No. 22-M of 1974 on his file on an application under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code. 2. Title Appeal No. 22-M of 1974 was filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Baripada, in Title Suit No. 59 of 1972. On 23-8-77 the appeal was made ready for hearing and was directed to be called on 21-9-77 for the purpose. Thus 21st Sept. 1977 was the first date of hearing. On that day the following order was made:-- 'Respondent is ready. Appellant applies for time on the ground stated therein. Heard Petition rejected as frivolous. Appellant to get ready for hearing by 12 noon. Later Advocate for appellant and Advocate for respondent are present. Advocate for appellant requests for time till tomorrow. I am also engaged in another part-heard Civil Appeal to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›