Orissa Court October 1984 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Rashmi Small Industries and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori163; 58(1984)CLT540
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. State Bank of India is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, Though the suit has been decreed, the Subordinate Judge has refused to grant costs and pendente lite interest and this appeal is, therefore, directed against the said order of refusal of interest and costs.2. The Bank fiied the suit for realisation of the amount due on defendant No. 1 on thebasis of a cash credit loan granted in his favour by the State Bank of India. The suit was for the principal sum of Rs. 10,462.25 together with interest pendente lite and future at the agreed rate and with costs of litigation. Defendant No. 1 was the principal loanee and defendant No. 2 was the guarantor. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement admitted his liability but defendant No. 2 contested the suit by alleging that he was not liable for the said claim.3. The Subordinate Judge relying on Exts. 1 and 3 came to hold that defendant No. 2 also was liable for the suit claim al...
Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Rasananda Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori18
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The short question involved in this case is whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties so as to justify reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. The question having been answered in the negative by the Court below, the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, (The 'Corporation' for short) has filed this revision petition.The facts relevant for the present proceedingare that on 16-8-1978 the Corporation actingthrough its Chief Engineer (Civil) invited sealedtenders from experienced brick manufacturersfor supply of 35 lakhs of Modular Kiln Burnt Bricks (hereinafter referred to as M. K. B. bricks). In pursuance to this notice, the opposite party submitted his tender on 22-9-1978 for supply of such bricks @ Rs. 127/- per thousand. There is dispute whether the opposite party agreed to supply M.K.B. bricks or K. B, (Kiln burnt) bricks. On 5-1-1979 the opposite party in a discussion with the officials of the Corporation came to learn that his te...
iswar Dehury Vs. Suchi Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori131; 58(1984)CLT481
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This Civil Revision arises outof an order of the learned Munsif of Angul in Title Suit No. 3 of 1979 where the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his title and possession in respect of 1 decimal of homestead land in village Kumari Singha within Angul Police Station. This village has been notified on 6-8-1973 to come within the consolidation area under Section 3(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By the impugned order passed, the suit has stood abated under Section 4(4) of the Act. 2. As the defendants who are opposite parties in this Civil Revision did not enter appearance in this Court in spite of valid service of notice, 1 requested Mr. S. S. Swain, Advocate to present the case on their behalf amicus curiae. 3. Both Mr. J. K. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Swain, appearing amicus curiae for the opposite parties at my request made t...
S. Mohan Rao Vs. Bhubaneswar Rath
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT385; 1984(II)OLR1083
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of conviction recorded against him by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not feel myself called upon to go into the facts and the merits of the case as I propose to allow the revision and remit the appeal to be heard afresh by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, for the reasons to follow, as agreed to by the learned counsel for both the sides.2. The learned counsel for the appellant had appeared on the previous dates of the hearing of the appeal in the appellate Court, but on August 12, 1981, owing to circumstances beyond his control, he could not appear in time in the Court. The learned Sessions Judge heard the appeal in the initial hours of that day with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and dictated the judgment in the open Court dismissing the appeal with reduction in the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Later on the same day, the ...
Sibanarayan Sahoo and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-1984
Reported in: 58(1984)CLT527; 1984(II)OLR1028
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioners, who are two of the four accused persons in G. R. Case No. 88 of 1983 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Banpur in the district of Puri, seek transfer of the criminal case against them to a Judicial Court at Cuttack. The petitioner are accused of commission of an offence punishable under Section 411 and the two other accused persons (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3) are accused of commission of an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Transfer of the case is sought on the grounds that the two petitioners are residents of Cuttack and some of the witnesses are also residents of the district of Cuttack and in addition, the petitioners apprehend assault at the instance of the first-informant who is said to be a rich and influential person of Banpur. The State opposes the application for transfer. While Mr. R.N. Panigrahi for the petitions has submitted with reference to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court ...
The Paradeep Port Trust Vs. Hindusthan Mercantile Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori106
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The Paradeep Port Trust, represented through its Chairman, the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 514 of 1974 now pending before the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur, has filed this revision petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order dated 30th November, 1979 holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding are that the petitioner booked at Calcutta a consignment comprising of two wooden boxes containing spare parts with M/s. Hindusthan Mercantile Transport Corporation (defendant No. 1 Opposite Party No. 1) for being transported to Paradeep. M/s. Central Goods Transport Corporation (Opposite Party No. 2) is underwriter for opposite party No. 1. The goods booked at Calcutta were meant to be delivered to the Port Trust at Paradeep admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur. Of the two boxes, one was duly delivered at Paradeep ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›