Orissa Court October 1983 Judgments
Radhamani Dibya and ors. Vs. Braja Mohan Biswal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori77; 57(1984)CLT1; 1984(I)OLR72
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decree declaring the plaintiffs' occupancy right to the suit lands and confirming their possession over came. The question of law that arises for consideration is whether a bhagchasi is a tenant under the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913:In the first instance, the appeal came up before a Division Bench to which one of us (P.K. Mohanti, J.) was a party. The Division Bench felt it desirable to place the appeal before a larger Bench in view of the conflict between the judgments of two different Division Benches of this Court regarding the status of a bhagchasi. That is how the entire appeal has been placed before us for disposal.2. The suit lands measuring 5.70 acres as described in Schedule B of the plaint appertained to Anabadi Khata No. 192 under Tauzi No. 2390 in mauza San Bhubanpur. Defendant No. 1 Maheswar Dobai, Krushna Chandra Dobai, the father of defendants 2 and 3 and Mayadhar Dobai, the father of defendants 4 to 6 were the co-sharer ...
Tag this Judgment!Kankala Gurunath Patro Vs. D. Dhanu Patro
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori173
P.C. Misra, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in a confirming judgment.2. The suit is based on a promissorynote. The plaintiff's case is that on1-4-71, the defendant took a loan of Rupees 3,000/- executing a promissory notein favour, of the plaintiff agreeing to .payan interest of 12 per cent per annum. Asno part of the loan or the interest accruing thereon was repaid by the defendant,the plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of his dues.3. The defendant's case, in short, was that he had paid back the loan together with interest as agreed to in presence of several gentlemen and the plaintiff did not return the promissory note on some plea or other. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of the said promissory note. The defendant also took a plea that the suit is barred by limitation.4. The learned Subordinate Judge after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, negatived the plea of payment by the defendant and decreed the suit with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Bhima Das Vs. Ganeswar Mahapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori229; 57(1984)CLT142; 1984(I)OLR129
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. Judgment-debtor in an execution proceeding is the appellant challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1975. 2. In Title Suit No. 98 of 1955, plaintiff-decree-holder had obtained a decree of injunction against the appellant-judgment-debtor in respect of Hamid Settlement Plot Nos. 2393 and 2395 and the judgment-debtor had been restrained not to obstruct the passage over these two plots. The decree also contained a mandatory direction. The said decree was executed on 15-7-1956 and the obstruction had been removed by the judgment-debtor. Subsequently on the allegation that judgment-debtor again obstructed the passage and thereby violated the order of injunction which had been granted under the decree, the decree-holder initiated the execution proceeding on 16-5-1969 invoking the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32, Civil P. C. The judgment-debtor filed an objection purporting to be one under Section 47, Civil P. C. which was registere...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. S. Dandasi Patro
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR313
J.K. Mohanty, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State Government against the order of the S. D. J. M., Chhatrapur, Ganjam acquitting the accused-respondent, S. Dandasi Patro, who is a dealer in grocery articles of the charges u/s. 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Prosecution case is that on. 25-7-1977 the Food Inspector of Ganjam visited the grocery shop of the accused-respondent and suspected that edible Til oil kept in the shop for sale was adulterated. He purchased 375 gms. of Til oil and paid the price of the same to the respondent. Then-he divided the oil into three equal parts and kept each of them in a sample bottle after observing all formalities and taking necessary precautions. He sent one of the sample bottles to the Public Analyst for his examination and report. The Public Analyst opined that the sample was adulterated. So prosecution report was filed against the accused-respondent.3. The plea of the accused-respondent is a complete denial. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Anand Rath, Director of Public Instruction Vs. (Higher Education) ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR159
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The writ application is directed against an order dated 24-] 2-1981 passed by the Director of Public Instruction (H. E.) Orissa substituting the membership of the petitioner by that of the opposite party No. 4 as a Vice-Chancellor's nominee in the Governing Body of the Khetrabasi Dayananda Anglo Vedic College, Nirakarpur which is an aided Educational Institution governed by the Orissa Education Act and the rules framed thereunder.2. After the Orissa Education (management of the private Colleges) Rules, 1979 came into force on 10-12-1979, the old Governing Body ceased to exist and a new Governing Body was to be constituted under Rule 3 (4) of the said rules by SRO No. 891/80 dated 28-8-1980. The College is to have 15 members in the Governing Body in the maximum including the Vice Chancellor's nominee. The petitioner was nominated by the Vice-Chancellor of Utkal University as his nominee by letter No. 3749/81 dated 7-2-1981 (Annexure-1) and he was included as a member ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshlal Santuka Vs. Sureshlal Santuka
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori64
ORDERB.N. Misra, J. 1. These two revisions arise oat of Title Suit No. 383 of 1982 pending on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. The petitioner and the opposite party are the defendant and plaintiff respectively in the said suit. Civil Revision No. 487 of 1983 is directed against the order dated 15-7-1983 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge rejecting the petitioner's application under Order. 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P. C. for amendment of the written statement. Civil Revision No. 486 of 1983 is directed against the order dated 16-7-1983 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. praying for review of the aforesaid order dated 15-7-1983. These two revisions have been heard analogously. 2. Defendant-petitioner Rameshlal, Maheshlal, Dinesh Lal and the Plaintiff-opposite party Sureshlal are the four sons of the late Kedarnath Santuka. The plaintiff's suit is for par...
Tag this Judgment!Kokila Dei Vs. Balakrushna Behera (and After Him) Dija and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori111
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the reversing judgment and decree of the District Judge, Puri, in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1975 wherein the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, in O. S. No. 70 of 1972 have been reversed. 2. The suit land measuring 1.84 acres appertaining to Khate No. 45, plot No. 253 with an area of 0,96 decimals in village Sadangi and Khata No. 46, plot No. 685, area 0.34 decimals and Khata No. 46, plot No. 688, area 0.54 in village Kantimal, was the property of Jayakrushna, father of defendant 9. According to the plaint case Jayakrushna sold the properly to one Chintamoni and Chintamoni in his turn re-conveyed the land in favour of defendant 9 and thus defendant 9 became the sole owner in possession of the suit land. On 12-8-1960, defendant 9 sold the properly to the plaintiff for Rs. 500/- and as the plaintiff was a minor, her mother was looking after the properly. Plaintiff got married in 1963, whereafter her husband took over ma...
Tag this Judgment!Guljar HussaIn Vs. Krishna Loila and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR58
B.K. Behera, J.1. For the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, I would accept the reference made under section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') and in exercise of the inherent jurisdict ion of this Court under section 482 of the Code, quash the order taking cognisance in the case instituted on a complaint in respect of offences punishable under sections 307, 324 and 448 read with sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code, exclusively triable by the Court of Session, without examining all the witnesses for the complainant as required under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 202 of the Code and the order of commitment based thereon, on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gokulananda Mohanty and Ors. v. Muralidhar Mallik 47 (1979) Cuttack Law Times 244 and by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1980 Criminal Law Journal 593 Ramacbander Rao and others vs. Boina Ramchander and another, which h...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Oils and Vanaspati Industries, (Prop: Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.) ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1983
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT49; 1984CriLJ581
ORDERB.N. Misra, J.1. Oswal Oils & Vanaspati Industries (Prop: Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.). Madras and Rakesh Palta, an employee of Oswal Oils & Vanaspati Industries, have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal P. C. for quashing the initiation of proceedings against them in 2(c) CC Case No. 24 of 1980 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. The two petitioners are accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in the aforesaid proceeding.2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted. On 31-10-1979 the Food Inspector of Berhampur Municipality visited the wholesale grocery shop of Balabhadra Hotta, accused No. 1, situated within the limits of Berhampur Municipality. After disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector inspected the stocks of Vanaspati, groundnut oil and gingelly oil stored for sale in the said shop. The Vanaspati tins had the following paper labels over them 'Om Product Luxmi, Vanaspati made from vegetable oils only, Oswal Oils and Vanaspati Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanashyam Das and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-05-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ588
B.K. Behera, J.1. These appeals, arising out of the same judgment and order passed by Mr. A. C. Das, Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1981, finding the appellants to be guilty of the charge of dacoity, convicting them under Section 395 of the Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years, have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.2. The appellants along with others, as alleged, being armed with deadly weapons, broke open the house of Purnachandra Panda (P. W. 2) at village Barput in the district of Cuttack during the night of May 17/18, 1980 and keeping the inmates of the house under the fear of instant death at the point of gun, removed cash and gold and silver ornaments and decamped. They also committed dacoity during the same night in the house of Dhaneswar Panda (P. W. 8) after keeping him under confinement and assaulting him which, as has been submitted at the Bar, was t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »