Orissa Court March 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.
Harihar Dehury Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR417
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302. I. P. C. sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having intentionally caused the death of one Balaram Giri of village Vejidihi under Kanjipani Police Station in the district of Keonjhar. The incident took place on 26.12.1979 around 8 P.M.2. The prosecution case runs thus:On the date of Occurrence the villagers including the deceased and the appellant held a feast and drank Handia (country liquor) near a canal locally known as 'PACHARl NALA' and returned home in the evening. There was some Handia left and on return to the village it was taken in the house of the appellant, but the deceased did not take part in it. At about 8 P.M. the appellant came to the house of the deceased armed, with a Bhalla shouting to kill him. At that time the deceased was present on the village path in front of his house. P. W. 2 Purnami Dei who is the elder brother's wife of the deceased heard the shouts of the appellant and tried t...
Adhikari Narahari Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori185; 1984(I)OLR366
P.K. Mohanti, J.1. The writ application and the miscellaneous appeal are directed against an order under Section 42 (1) (b) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). Both the cases have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.2. Petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Raghunath Jew Temple at Dakhyabrahmapur in the district of Cuttack. On the basis of a report dated 2-1-1975 submitted by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, a proceeding under Section 42 (1) (b) of the Act was started by the Commissioner of Endowments and after due enquiry an order was passed on 18-8-1977 recording satisfaction that in the interests of proper administration of the institution a scheme of administration should be settled. Notices were issued to the hereditary trustee and the persons interested to furnish proposals as to how best the scheme should be framed. The proceeding was adjourned to 6-10-1977 for consideration of proposals. On ...
Sadananda Sa and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Consolidation, Cuttack and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori33; 57(1984)CLT524
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking for issuance of Writ of Cerliorari to quash the orders of the authorities under the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereafter called the 'Act'), the orders of the said authorities having been annexed as Annexs. 6, 7 and 8 to the writ petitioa The dispute centres round three plots bearing number 435 measuring 6.81 acres : No. 589 measuring 9.18 acres and Na 590 measuring 2.00 acres of 1921 Settlement appertaining to village Cherupalli of ex-State of Sonepur. These three plots are recorded as 'Talikata', 'Uparikata' and 'Trishulbandha' respectively in the Record-of-Rights in 2nd and 3rd Settlement, vide Annexs. 1 and 2, and 'Sri Zemindar' has been recorded as the owner. It has further been mentioned that the forefather of the present petitioners who was Gountia of the Village excavated the tank ...
Ganesh Sendha Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR412
Pathak, C.J.1. The appellant Ganesh Sendha has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, for causing the death of his mother Gheti Sendha and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life.2. This appeal has been filed from Jail. As the appellant was not represented by any Counsel we have engaged Mr. I. C. Dash, Advocate, to represent him at the State expense;3. The fact leading to the present appeal is a typical one that happens in the unsophisticated rural milieu where from a small spark, conflagration ensues.4. The prosecution story is that on the date of occurrence between 8 and 9. 0' clock in the morning the deceased went to the village lane and asked the appellant as to why he was always frowning at her and told that if she had caused 'any loss to him, she would compensate the same. On hearing this the appellant was enraged and rushed to the deceased and gave a blow on her head on the blunt side of the axe, M. O. I., as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ...
Karunakar Das and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori174
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioners call in question the Explanations & added to Section 77, Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'), by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Act 58 of 1974), to be described hereinafter as the Amendment Act, which came into force on and from October 19, 1974, as being illegal and invalid, by defeating the very purpose of the Act providing for a free and fair election and being opposed to the invaluable doctrines of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and for having encouraged corrupt practices and eroding all norms embodied in the Act. 2. Section 77 of the Act, as it stood prior to the addition of the Explanations by the Amendment Act, would read: '77. Account of election expenses and maximum thereof.--(1) Every candidate at an election shall, either be himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connect...
Dr. Guru Prasad Mohanty and ors. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori209; 57(1984)CLT477; 1984(I)OLR447
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-10-1983 by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Tille Suit No. 149/494 of 1981/1983 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 10, Civil P. C. The question that arises for consideration is whether in a case where the ingredients of Section 10, Civil P. C. are satisfied, has the Court no jurisdiction to direct consolidation of the two suits?The two suits in question in the Present case are Title Suit No. 233 of 1931 and Title Suit No. 149/494 of 1981/1983. The former was filed on 3-10-1981 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Cuttack and the latter in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack on 16-11-1981. By order dated 5-7-1983 of the District Judge, Cuttack Title Suit No. 233 of 1981 was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Cuttack. Again by 12-9-1983 both the suits were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. On 15-4-1982 the petitioners (defendants in the sa...
Suresh Chandra Das Vs. Maheswar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori13
ORDERP.C. Misra, J.1. Defendant No. 4 in the trial Court who is respondent No. 4 in the lower appellate Court is the petitioner in this revision application against the order dt. 22-7-1983 of the Additional. District Judge of Cuttack passed in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1980.2. Opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 60 of 1976 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara, for partition of the suit properties. The petitioner is a purchaser from the share of defendant No. 1. He was impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the suit. The plaintiff claimed a right under Section 4 of the Partition Act to re-purchase to share of defendant No. 1 which was sold to the petitioner. Defendant No. 4 alone contested the suit. According to him. there was a partition by metes and bounds amongst the three brothers of the family long prior to the date of his purchase, i.e. 3-4-1968, and on this basis, his contention was that a suit for fresh partition of the properties was not maintainable in law and the rel...
Basudev Pani Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori78
ORDERP.C. Misra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sub-Judge, Kendrapara in T. S. No. 13 of 1981 holding that the suit shall 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'). The Defendant No. 2 is the petitioner whose prayer for an order that the suit has abated under S, 4(4) of the said Act has been rejected by the impugned order.2. The plaintiff in the trial Court (O. P. No. 1 in this revision) filed T. S. No. 13 of 1981 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Kendrapara praying for the following reliefs : --(a) declaring that defendant No. 2 is not adopted son of late Punananda and that the alleged document on that score dated 22-11-1978 is an illegal, fraudulent and void one which should be treated as a nullity or nonexistent; and (b) declaring that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 cannot in law lay any claim to the schedule of property left behind by the uncle of the...
Hrudananda Panda and anr. Vs. Dhirendra Behura
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori74; 57(1984)CLT398
ORDERP.K. Mohanti, J.1. Challenge in this Civil Revision is to the order of the learned Second Munsif, Cuttack, passed in T.S. No. 118 of 1982 deciding Issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the suit for declaration of title to and confirmation or, in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit lands described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint The suit lands belonged to one Karunakar Behera who died in November, 1949 leaving behind him his widow Kuntala Bewa, a son (the plaintiff in the suit) and two daughters. Kuntala Bewa filed T.S. No 10/55 against the plaintiff for partition of the family properties. That suit stood abated on 3-7-74 under Section 4(4) Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acf). Kuntala Bewa died in December, 1976. Before her death, she had sold a portion of the suit lands in favour of defendant 1 by a registered sale deed dt/- 21-9-72. The...
Omprakash Saha Vs. Manmohan Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: 57(1984)CLT355; 1984(I)OLR340
B.K. Behera, J.1. On July 10, 1981, a petition of complaint was made in the Court of the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Baripada, by the opposite party No. 1, as the complainant, against the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 and Smt. Ginidevi Saha for commission of offences punishable under Sections 241, 366 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the opposite party No. 1 and fixed August 11, 1981 as the date of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), to be referred to hereinafter as the Code, with a direction to the opposite party No. 1 to produce all his witnesses, On the date fixed for inquiry, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate made a direction to send copies of the complaint and the initial statement of the opposite party No. 1 to the court of Mr G. P. Rao, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to hold the inquiry under Section 202 of the C...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »