Orissa Court August 1983 Judgments
Pradip Kumar Sahu Vs. Sobharani Samantaray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori29; 56(1983)CLT363
Pathak, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the 'Act') arising out of a petition purported to have been made under Section 10 of the Act.2. The learned District Judge, on a perusal of the solitary evidence of the petitioner, has passed a decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the parties and hence this reference.3. On a perusal of the petition filed by the husband, it is amply clear that the case is not covered by the ground available to the husband under Section 10 of the Act. According to the provision of' Section 10, the only ground on which the husband can apply for dissolution of the marriage is adultery committed by the wife. On a bare reading of the petition, we find that this is a case of cruelty which is not a ground available to the husband under Section 10 of the Act for making an application for dissolution of marriage.4. The learned District Judge has overlooked t...
Tag this Judgment!Radhasyam Jena and ors. Vs. Jagannath Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: 56(1983)CLT459; 1984(I)OLR54
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Munsif, Kendra-para, dated 23rd July, 1981, in Misc. Case No. 408 of 1979 whereunder the learned Munsif has held that the pending proceeding before him does not abate under section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The miscellaneous case arose out of an application under section 22(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The prayer of the petitioner in the said application was to direct the opposite party no. 1 to sell the suit land to him for a consideration to be determined by the court. The suit land originally belonged to one Netrananda who died in 1967 leaving behind his widow Madhavi and sons Jagannath, Hadibandhu and Gajendra. Madhavi died in the year 1971. Hadibandhu and Gajendra executed a sale deed conveying their share in the property to a stranger Radhesyam without offering the same to Jagannath who had a prefer...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer-cum-tahsildar Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori115
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This writ application is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Endowments confirming an appellate order of fine Assistant Commissioner of Endowments made under Section 32(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Opposite Party No. 3 Bata Krushna Mohanty was appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments as the Debottar Manager of the Debottar Department at Daspalla. The Executive Officer of Daspalla started a disciplinary proceeding against opposite party No. 3 on charges of misconduct and misappropriation of Debotar funds and by his order dated 4-2-81 inflicted the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by this order opposite party No. 3 preferred an appeal under Section 32(2) of the Act which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments (opposite party No. 2). The order of removal from service was set aside and O. P. No. 3 was directed to be reinstated in service with the benefit of back...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Sakur Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1983
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT332(Ori)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order of the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, dated 11th July, 1980, in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1979 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, in II (c) CC Case No. 70 of 1976 (Tr. No. 925 of 1977) under Section 135 of the Customs Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') for violation of the provisions of Sections 11C, 11D, 11E, 11F and 111 (d) and (p) of the said Act.2. According to the prosecution case, the Assistant Collector Customs, and the Inspector of Central Excises searched the shop of the petitioner Md. Sakur on 29th June, 1976, at 7 p.m. and seized 22 foreign watches alleged to have been imported without any valid authority and in violation of the provisions of the Act. Statement of the accused was recorded and a proceeding for confiscation under the Act was initiated. After obtaining necessary sanction as required under Section 137 of the Act, a cri...
Tag this Judgment!Upendranath Nayak and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori71; 1984(I)OLR10
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. With effect from Oct. 11, 1956, the Central Government introduced Leave Travel Concession (in short, 'L. T. C.') with a view to rendering assistance to its servants serving at places away from their homes for journey to their homes and back to their places of service during regular leave. This concession was extended to journeys to places other than home towns or villages from 1974. The concession was available to a servant and such members of his family as were entitled to travelling allowance on transfer. The journey was to be undertaken by the shortest route and class of accommodation would be the same as the one to which the servant was entitled to under the travelling allowance rules. 2. The petitioners are Class IV employees serving in the Proof and Experiment Establishment at Chandipur in the district of Balasore, under Opposite Party No. 2, the Commandant of the establishment. They availed L. T C. and travelled by train. It has been alleged that petitioners 1...
Tag this Judgment!Khetrabasi Chhatoray Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 56(1983)CLT517; 1984(I)OLR25
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of the learned Munsif of Puri allowing an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. for addition of Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 23 as defendants in the suit.2. The petitioner as plaintiff brought O. S. No. 56 of 1979 (I) in the Court of the Munsif, Puri for a declaration of his title to and confirmation of possession over the disputed land, for a direction to correct the relevant record-of-rights and for a permanent injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1 (State of Orissa) from distrubing his possession. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 23 filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. for being impleaded as defendants on the ground that the suit plot is a tank and they have a right of user of its water. They further alleged that during the settlement proceedings, the petitioner was attempting to get the land recorded exclusively in his own name, but on their objection the Settlement Authorities made t...
Tag this Judgment!Dhania Naik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 56(1983)CLT427; 1984CriLJ397
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Appellant Dhania Naik has preferred this appeal from Dhenkanal Jail challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in Sessions Trial No. 33-D of 1978. The learned Sessions Judge has found him guilty under Section 302, Penal Code, and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life,2. The prosecution case in brief is that Gura, Bonda and Sukra were three brothers and were living separately from each other, Accused is the son of Gura and deceased Cheru was the son of Bonda, Balia (P. W, 1) is the son of Sukra. Gura died leaving his wife Dangei. Wife of Bonda also died. Thereafter Bonda went and stayed with Dangei treating her as his wife and enjoyed the usufructs of the lands which had fallen to Gura's share as well as his own share leaving his own son Cheru uncared for. After the daath of Bonda. accused alao continued to enjoy the usufructs of the lands which, had fallen to Gura's share as well as Bonda's share. On 27-9-19...
Tag this Judgment!Sagarmall Agarwalla Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Ori11; 56(1983)CLT267
Behera, J.1. If we hold and we must that the executive or any other authority has a duty to act fairly and that the right of a citizen of India to trade enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not to be subjected merely to the disadvantage or inconvenience of another individual, the writ application before the us under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders passed in Annexures 11 and 12, directing the petitioner to shift the rice huller and refusing to renew his milling licence shall, for the reasons to follow succeed.2. The petitioner was granted a licence (Annexure-1) under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) in 1974 for milling of rice locating it at Ran-pur (Banpur?) in the district of Puri. The licence was renewed from time to time. After giving prior intimation, to the Sub-divisional Officer, Nayagarh and the Collector. Puri. the petitioner shifted the huller from plot No. 401/2129 to plot No. 414 at a distance of onl...
Tag this Judgment!Mulia Kirsani Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: 56(1983)CLT349; 1984CriLJ123
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302. of the Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life by the judgment and order passed by the Court of Session after accepting the case of the prosecution that after a quarrel between the appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other in the evening of May 18, 1978, the appellant, being armed with bow and arrows, came at about midnight to the outer courtyard of the house of the deceased where the deceased and P.W. 2(his widow) were sleeping and shot an arrow (M. O. II) which missed the deceased and shot another arrow (M. O. I) which hit and pierced into the abdomen resulting in his death. Of the witnesses examined for the prosecution. P.W. 1 was the sole witness to the occurrence and P.W. 2 is the widow of the deceased. While Mr. Routray appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 was not true and trustworthy, it has been contended by the learned Standing Counse...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Smt. Nar ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-10-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC316; AIR1984Ori43; 56(1983)CLT415
P.K. Mohanti, Actg. C.J.1. These two miscellaneous first appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (to be referred to as the 'Act') arise out of a common order of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (to be referred to as the 'Tribunal'). Puri fixing the liability of the insurer at Rs. 50,000/- out of the total compensation of Rs. 1,01,200/- and the owner of the goods vehicle bearing No. WGB 2835 for payment of the balance amount to respondents 1 to 7. The appellant in M. A. No. 54/77 is the insurer and the appellant in M. A. No. 58/77 is the owner of the vehicle. Respondents 1 to 7 in both the appeals are the claimants.2. Respondents to 7 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/-for the death of one Radhashyam Gupta the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondents Nos. 2 to 7, arising out of a motor accident which took place on 9-12-73 while he (the deceased) was travelling in the said goods vehic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »