Orissa Court February 1984 Judgments
Mathew Omalt and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT305; 1984(I)OLR303
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. With consent of the counsel for both sides the revision is heard. Admit.2. This revision is directed against an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 342/323/506/307|34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Behera, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently urges that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate fell into an error in taking cognizance of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in order to find that an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. was committed, the nature of the offence, the size of the injury, the motive of the accused and his attendant conduct are relevant factors. Though in this case a knife was used and a blow was given on the head, having regard to the nature of the injury caused and the genesis of the occurrence, it is difficult to . hold that the intention of the petitioners was to attempt to cause death. I have gone through the F. I. R. and the statements of witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Sivananda Roy Vs. Janaki Ballav Pattnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori197
ORDERP.C. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 13-4-1983 passed by the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, in M.S. No. 38 of 1983. The learned Munsif has, by the impugned order, refused to admit the aforesaid suit against defendant No. 4 and directed his name to be struck of f the records, at the stage of admission of the plaint. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this revision challenges the legality of the said order in this revision.2. The petitioner as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, praying for a decree to be passedagainst the defendants jointly and severally for a token sum of Re. 1/-. The plaintiffs case in the plaint, in short, is as follows : --(a) That the plaintiff is an Advocate who ordinarily carries on his profession at Bhubaneswar. (b) That the plaintiff wanted to book a suite in the Guest House of the Orissa State Electricity Board (impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 1) at Bhubaneswar for 28-10-1980 for one o...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Krishna Stores
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT321; 1984(I)OLR427
P.C. Misra, J.1. The defendant in M. S. No. 75 of 1968 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was for realisation of Rs. 7936, 64 p. towards the damages for short delivery of groundnut oil dispatched in a wagon of the defendant-railways and for consequential loss suffered by the plaintiff and for interest.2. The plaintiff's case in short is that it is a registered partnership firm running its business under the name and style Krishna Stores having its place of business at Kantabanji. It is alleged that a consignment of 660 tins of ground-nut oil were dispatched from ex-Navagadh by Saurastra Oil Mill to be delivered at Kantabanji Railway Station in a wagon as per R/R No. B. 54309 dated 30.3.1965, for being carried by the defendant-railways as a carrier at the railway risk rate. It has been alleged that the said ground-nut oil tins were delivered to the defendant-railways at the point of dispatch in properly packed condition providing fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Ganeshjew Mahapravu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori134
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this application, under Section 115 C.P.C. the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 23-8-1980 in Misc. Case No. 262 of 1980 by the Munsif, Kendrapara. Under the said order, the learned Munsif rejected the petition filed by the petitioners to recallthe ad interim order of injunction passed against them. The opposite parties filed T. S. 189 of 1980 impleading the State of Orissa and Tahasildar, Kendrapara (petitioners in this case) as defendants, praying for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land or if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, for restoration of possession to them and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. They filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. praying that notice and order of injunction be issued simultaneously restrainirg the opposite parties not to dispossess the petitioners from the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhunath Sahu Vs. Upendra Palai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT278; 1984(I)OLR363
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 207 of 1977 in the court of the Munsif, Kendrapwra has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 28. 2. 1980 of the said court accepting the report of the Commissioner despite his objection.2. The crux of the dispute in the suit is whether the disputed land is a part of plot Nos. 846 and 847 belonging to the plaintiff or it is a part of plot Nos. 843 and 844 belonging to the defendants. On two previous occassions the Commissioners appointed by the Court to measure the land had submitted their reports which were not accepted by the court on the objection of the defendants. The report submitted on the third occasion is the subject matter of the present proceeding. The report of the Commissioner was in favour of the defendants (opposite parties) and was objected to by the plaintiff-petitioner. The Commissioner was examined and cross-examined by the parties. The court below on a consideration of the report, the materials a...
Tag this Judgment!Dasu Alias Jasoda Dei Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR382
B.K. Behera, J.1. The elder of the two wives of Lalmohan Naik (P. W. 2) is alleged to have committed the murder ci the younger one by assaulting her by means of an axe (M.O. III) in the jungle after both of them had gone to their land with manure in two baskets (M. Os. I and II) in the morning at about 7 to 8 A. M. of April 30, 1984. The prosecution sought to establish its case by examining nine witnesses none of whom had given direct testimony about the assault on the person of the deceased by the appellant and the order of conviction against the appellant, recorded by Mr. B. Panigrahi, Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, sentencing her to undergo imprisoment for life, has been rested on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances fought by the prosecution were that the appellant and the deceased had left their house in the morning with baskets full of manure (M. Os. I and II), when the appellant, it was alleged, had been armed with an axe. At about 4 P. M., the dead body was found in the jungle...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Md. Abdul Karim
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT281; 1984(I)OLR262
B.K. Behera, J.1. The question for consideration by us is the cancellation or continuance of bail granted to the opposite party by Mr. N. P. Mohapatra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani, by his order dated July 26,1983. An application has been moved by the learned Additional Government Advocate under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) read with section 482 thereof to cancell bail because of improper and arbitrary exercise of discretion and to prevent an abuse of the process of the court in the manner in which bail has been granted in a case of murder. Mr. J. K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party, contends that there are no-reasonable grounds for believing that the opposite party had committed the offence and there is no justification to cancel the tail granted to the opposite party.2. It is alleged against, the opposite party, who was functioning at the relevant time as the Officer-in-Charge of the Raikia Police Statio...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT374; 1984(I)OLR575; [1985]59STC107(Orissa)
B.N. Misra, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Acf, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for determination of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, sales in the workers' canteen were liable to be included in the gross and taxable turnovers of the assessee during the year 1968-69 for the purpose of assessment of sales tax ?'2. These references relate to the assessment for the year 1968-69. The assessee, M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela, is a registered dealer carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of steel and other products. In course of assessment for the year 1968-69, the assessing officer included Rs. 7, 94, 167. 81 being the sale proceeds of the workers' canteen, Rs. 4.05, 226. 38 being the sale proceeds of unserviceable materials of the A. C. A. Stores, Rs. 36, 778. 89 being the sale proceeds of the Rourkela Guest Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sasmal Vs. Additional Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT368; 1984CriLJ1389
B.K. Behara, J.1. The unsuccessful first party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order (Annex ure-3) passed by the learned Executive Magistrate declaring some members of the opposite parties to be in possession of the land in dispute and the revisional order (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, maintaining Annexure 3.2. While the petitioner's claim was based on the settlement of the disputed land in his favour under Section 4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act after the vesting of the estate of the opposite party No. 19 with the State Government in 1974 and his possession of the land as a tenant first under the opposite party No. 19 and then in his own right, the opposite parties, who had contested the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cuttack Municipality, Represented by Gourahari Panda, Food Inspector V ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT241; 1984(I)OLR231
Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.79 passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, in 2(c) C. C Case No. 171 of 1978/Trial No. 117 of 1979 acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') read with section 7 thereof.2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the present appeal is that on 6. 4. 1978 at about 11 a. m., the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality [P. W. 1] inspected the shop of the respondent at Buxi-bazar, Cuttack town, in the name and style of 'New Calcutta Sweets'. At the time of inspection, the respondent being the proprietor of the shop was present. During his inspection, P. W. 1 suspected adulteration of the stock of 'sweet cow curd' and 'Kamala Bhog' which were kept exposed for sale for human consumption. He served a notice on the respondent disclosing his intention to purchase the said articles for chemical analysi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »