Orissa Court January 1983 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.
Dhusasan Nayak Vs. Dhadi Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ori127
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 120 of 1975, levied for executing the decree in Title Suit No. 15 of 1961 in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, is the petitioner in both these applications under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. The final decree in the said suit allotted 4-2/63 decimals out of 11 decimals in plot No. 498 in Khata No. 60 in favour of the decree-holders. The remaining property out of the plot was to go to the judgment-debtor and some others. Execution was levied to take possession of the aforesaid portion of the plot. A Commissioner was appointed to deliver possession upon measurement. The Commissioner submitted a report to the effect that possession had been delivered. An objection was filed purporting to be under Section 47 of the Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 34 of 1978 challenging the Commissioner's report and contending that delivery of possession of excess land had been effected. By order dated 28-6-79, the Execut...
Dhanar Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ402
ORDERJ.K. Mohanty, J.1. Appellant Dhanurjaya Gouda along with seven others, who are all related to each other were tried in the court of Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore. The appellant was charged under Section 302, I. P. C, for having committed murder of Baidehi Samant and/ under Section 307, I.P.C, for having attempted to cause death of Balaram Samant (PW 1), the husband of deceased Baidehi Samant. The other accused persons were charged under Sections 302/149 and 307/149, I. P. C. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The other accused persons were acquitted.2. The prosecution case is as follows:-There was dispute between PW 1 and the accused persons over a plot of land bearing plot No. 930 appertaining to khata No. 43 of village Mahendri and locally k...
Brundaban Bisoyee and ors. Vs. Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori128
R.N. Misra, C.J.1. The dispute in this application is one relating to a tank. Petitioners claim that the tank has been in their occupation for more than thirty years prior to the direction given by the Tahasildar to include it as a Sairat. They, therefore, challenged the order of the Tahsildar by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer vacated the direction of the Tahsiidar and suggested that the matter should go to the Consolidation Authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. The opposite parties 4 and 5 thereupon carried a revision before the Additional District Magistrate labelling it to be one under Section 12 (2) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. The Additional District Magistrate (opposite party No. 3) after hearing parties held thatthe revision was incompetent, yet, he proceeded to direct:--'As such this is not a matter for declaration of right, interest on any l...
State of Orissa Vs. S.B. Joshi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ori125
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack dismissing an application under Sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act for removal of an arbitrator. 2. In order to understand how the question involved in the case arises, it is necessary to state certain facts. It appears that the opposite party No. 1 had entered into an agreement with the State of Orissa for construction of a High Level Bridge over the river Brahmani on National Highway near Dharmasala. Clause 19 of the agreement provides as follows :-- 'Any dispute that shall arise out of this contract the settlement of which is not herein provided for, shall be decided by two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party or an Umpire to be appointed by the arbitrators before proceeding with reference and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 as amended shall apply to any such reference.' 3. The opposite party No. 1 appointed Shri G. D. Taskar a...
Shyam Sundar Chaudhury and ors. Vs. Judhistir Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Ori187
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J. 1. This revisional application arises out of an order passed on an objection petition under Section 47, C.P.C. filed by the Judgment-debtors. The short question that falls for consideration is with regard to the question of executability of the decree.2. The opposite parties as the plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 247/72-I against the petitioners for a declaration that they are the sole owners in possession of the suit properties. The suit was compromised on the following terms:--(a) The title of the defendants to the suit properties and their possession over the same be declared. (b) The defendants would pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before. 31-5-77. (c) The defendants would pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of the compensation money awarded in the Forest Claim Case pending in the High Court and 13.84 acres of land including some of the suit lands would remain charged for realisation of the amount. (d) On payment of Rs. 20,000/- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›