Orissa Court November 1983 Judgments
Laxidhar Behera Vs. Radhakrushna Enterprisers and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR131
P.C. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. appeal no 132 of 1978 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant to issue an order of mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2 (opposite party No. 3 in this revision) to deposit in Court the amount withdrawn by him in the circumstances mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts on the allegation that he and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 constitute a partnership firm in the name and style of 'Radhakrushna Enterprisers', impleaded as defendant No. 1 in this suit. It has been stated that defendant no 2 had undertaken a contract work under the State Government and the partnership was constituted as defendant No. 2 alone could not complete the execution of the work. According to the plaintiff, the partnership deed executed between the parties on 16-3-68 contain stipulations that defendant No. 3 would act as t...
Tag this Judgment!Brajamohan Nath Vs. Smt. Kesi Tripathy and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT145; 1984(I)OLR111
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in 1972 as a lower division clerk in the office of the Accountant-General, Orissa as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. While he was continuing in service, he was served with a Notice on 8th June, 1977, that his services would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of the notice_Vide Annexure_l, Four representation made by the petitioner against the order of termination was rejected and the order of rejection was intimated to him on 15-2-78 vide Annexure_2. The petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing Annexures 1 and 2 and directing the opposite parties to reinstate him in service and to give all service benefits which would have accrued to him had he continued in service.2. The petitioner challenges the order of termination of service on the following grounds ;(i) Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 is not ap...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Shankar Kaur and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori88
Behera, J.1. By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') dt. January 23, 1964, 453.25 acres of land of village Kalamati in the district of Sambalpur including 26.37 acres of land belonging to the claimants were acquired for having a State Livestock Breeding Farm. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation amount for the land at Rs. 7,056.19 paise and Rs. 26.78 paise for six trees standing thereon, totalling an amount of Rs. 7,118.97(?) paise. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants made higher claims for which the Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants wanted compensation to be paid at an average rate of Rs. 10.000/- per acre for 20.26 acres of land and at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for remaining 6.11 acres of land on which a pucca house had been constructed. For the house, twenty trees, a well and two Mundas on the acquired land, the petitioners claimed compensation of...
Tag this Judgment!Anirudha Agasti Alias Surendra Panda Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR139
B.K. Behera, J.1. The trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charge of dacoity alleged to have been committed in the house of Balabhadra Tripathy (P. W. 1) at village Darada Deuli in the district of Balasore during the night of the 18th/19th January 1980, during the commission of which the culprits had used knives, bombs and lathis and had looted and removed the gold and silver ornaments, cash and other articles from his house owing to paucity of evidence against the appellant that he was one of the culprits. The appellant has, however, been convicted under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years as he had been found in possession of M. Os. I to III including cash which had allegedly been removed during the commission of the offence of dacoity and these articles had been seized from his house in the course of investigation by the Officer-in-charge of the police station (P....
Tag this Judgment!T. Sivalingam Rao Vs. Accountant-general and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-25-1983
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR104
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in 1972 as a lower division clerk in the office of the Accountant-General, Orissa as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. While he was continuing in service, he was served with a Notice on 8th June, 1977, that his services would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of the notice_Vide Annexure_l, Four representation made by the petitioner against the order of termination was rejected and the order of rejection was intimated to him on 15-2-78 vide Annexure_2. The petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing Annexures 1 and 2 and directing the opposite parties to reinstate him in service and to give all service benefits which would have accrued to him had he continued in service.2. The petitioner challenges the order of termination of service on the following grounds ;(i) Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 is not ap...
Tag this Judgment!Krutibasa Panda and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-24-1983
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT186; 1984CriLJ1111
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is against the order dated 11.8.1983 passed by the Magistrate First Class, Cuttack, by which the learned Magistrate on the basis of materials before him has taken cognizance against petitioners Sadhu Charan Panda and Krutibas Panda under Sections 324/34/109, penal Code, and lias issued summons to them to appear on 30.8.1983.2. Mr. Dey, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that though the F.I.R. contained allegations against the petitioners, but the witnesses examined under Section 161, Criminal P.C. did not implicate the petitioners and, therefore, rightly no charge-sheet had been filed against them. It is no doubt true that while being examined in court, P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 implicated the petitioners in the offence, but according to Mr. Dey, the power under Section 319, Criminal P.C., is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist and in the present case there is no such compelling rea...
Tag this Judgment!Dhruba Charan Choudhury Vs. Jasoda Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1986Ori150
P.K. Mohanti, J. 1. An order of eviction of the petitioner from a shop-room, made under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967, is under challenge in this writ application.2. One Sibaram Sahu filed the application for eviction of the petitioner on the sole ground that he wanted to use the room for running a business in detergents and chemicals. He died during the pendency of the proceeding and opposite parties 1 to 3 were substituted in his place.3. The case of the petitioner-tenant was that the landlord demanded higher rent to which he did not agree. Hence, the petition for eviction was filed on false grounds.4. The learned House Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. On appeal, the order of eviction was confirmed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.5. The only question urged in this writ application is that the petitioner-landlord having died during the pendency of the proceedings the right to sue did not...
Tag this Judgment!Paramananda Pradhan and anr. Vs. Palau Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori57; 56(1983)CLT482; 1984(I)OLR40
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 against a decree of reversal. The suit was for partition of the plaintiff's half share in the raiyati lands described in Schedule A-1 and the Gounti-raiyati lands described in Schedule A-2 of the plaint. Both the items of the suit lands arc situate at village Kusumpal in the former State of Bamra which merged with Orissa and became a part of the district of Sambalpur on January 1, 1948.2. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Gounti-raiyati lands in the former State of Bamra are the personal property of the Gountia or he ceases to have the right to hold the same on abolition of the village offices.3. In the case of State of Orissa v. Prafulla Kumar Pradhan: ILR 1980 (1) Cuttack 547, a Division Bench of this Court held that the incidence of the tenancy of Gounti-raiyati land is the same as that of the raiyati land and that such lands are the raiyati lands of the Gountia an...
Tag this Judgment!Sanyasi Jena and ors. Vs. Mina Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori213; 1984(I)OLR154
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Title Suit No. 30 of 1978 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, by opposite party No, 6 for partition. It was alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint that in the property in suit, the plaintiff had 1/4 interest, the defendants 1 to 3 had 1/4, defendants 4 to 8 had 1/4 and defendants 9 to 12 had 1/4 interest. The plaintiff sought for a declaration of the shares of the different branches and for allotment of specific property. The suit was filed on 20-3-1978. On the next day i. e. on 21-4-78(?) the defendants 1, 3, 9, 10 and 12 entered appearance. As despite service of notice defendants 4 to 8 and 11 did not appear, they were set ex parte. The case was adjourned to 11-5-1978 for filing of written statement by defendants 1 to 3, 9, 10 and 12. On 11-5-1978 the said defendants sought further adjournment and the case was adjourned to 4-7-1978. On that day a petition of compromise entered into by the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3, 9, 10 and 12 was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Sukanta Chandra Sahoo Vs. Jayakrishna Routray and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori159; 57(1984)CLT306; 1984(I)OLR305
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13-5-1982 of the District Judge, Cuttack, rejecting the petitioner's application to be brought on record.2. One Bai Bewa filed Title Suit No. 201 of 1976 in the court of the Munsif, First Court, against Jayakrishna Routray for cancellation of two sale deeds which were alleged to have been taken by Jayakrishna from her exercising fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif and the two sale deed were declared as null and void. On 15-9-1978 Javakrishna preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 106 of 1978. The appeal was dismissed for default and an application for restoration of the appeal was filed which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 72 of 1981. During the pendency of the miscellaneous case in the court of the District Judge, Cuttack. Bai Bewa died on 19-11-1981. After the death of Bai, in affidavit was file...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »