Orissa Court May 1984 Judgments
Pramila Bastia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1402
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application for issue of writ of habeas corpus directing release of the detenu Tulukishore Bastia who had been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.The order of detention dt. 23.2.1984 (Annexure-1) was passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack (Opposite Party No. 2) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Act, on being satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to order his detention. On 25.2.1984, the grounds of detention (Annexure-3) were served on the detenu. The grounds which are in Oriya language contained two incidents which translated into English read as follows:(1) On 3.2.84 night at about 11.45. P.M. your brother Balu Bastia after forcibly locking up the shop of Ajaya Behera situated on Medical Road in Mangalabag area, asked the nearby...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Sahu Vs. Golapi Barik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori288
B.N. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sonepur. Present respondent No. 1 was defendant No. 1 in the trial court. The late Gourhari Sahu was defendant No. 2. After the death of defendant No. 2 on 5-12-75, present respondent No. 3, the daughter and only heir, was substituted in place of deceased defendant No. 2. The name of the late Gourhari Sahu, who was inadvertently added as respondent No. 2 in this court has been deleted by Order No. 7 dt. 17-5-78 of this court.2. The following genealogy which isadmitted describes the relationship between the plaintiff, the late defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 3. Sabala Sahu | ________________________________________ | | The late Gourhari The late Gopal (Defendent No.2) Jagannath(Plantiff)Bhama (Respondent) No. 3)The total extent of the suit land is Ac. 2.550 decimals. It appertains to plot No. 1132 with an area of Ac. 1.680 decimals and part of plot No. 1133 with an area of Ac....
Tag this Judgment!Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Specified Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR418(Orissa)
Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner--Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, a public limited company--impugns in this application the decision dated May 6, 1983, of the Specified Authority, annexed as annexure 1 to the writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the said authority did not consider relevant materials and considered irrelevant materials in coming to the conclusion that the amalgamation of Messrs Kalinga Tubes Limited with the petitioner-company did not satisfy the conditions enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 72A of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to opposite party No. 2, the Union of India, to issue a declaration under Section 72A(1) of the Act.2. Some admitted facts and events necessary in the context of a decision in the case may be briefly stated hereunder: On July 1, 1978, the petitioner-company acquired controlling interest in Messrs Kalinga Tubes Ltd. after receiving due permis...
Tag this Judgment!Chapala Kumari Naik Vs. Registrar, Utkal University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR648
P.C. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was an examinee in the Bachelor of Education Examination held in the month of May, 1982. She has prayed in this writ application for appropriate direction to be issued for re-valuation of her answer paper in Paper II by a competent examiner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we directed the question paper and the answer paper of the petitioner to be produced in Court and pursuant to the said order, the question paper and the answer paper have been produced.. After perusing the same, we find that there is some confusion in evaluating the answers. The petitioner was required to answer four questions from Group 'A' and one from Group 'B'. The petitioner has answered questions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 out of Group 'A'. While answering question No. 8 which requires her to write short notes on any two of the subjects given there-under, she has put numerical number against different paragraphs, all of which together constitute the answer to that qu...
Tag this Judgment!Nabakishore Rout Vs. the Regional Director, Regional Office for Health ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(I)OLR481
P.C. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the building on plot No. 213-A of Saheednagar in Bhubaneswar town. The building is said to have been completed on 11. 9. 1978 and was let out to opposite party No. 1, the Regional Director, Health and Family Welfare, Bhubaneswar, with effect from 15. 9. 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 746/-. According to the petitioner, the monthly rent of the building, so assessed by opposite party No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Central Division, C. P. W.D, Bhubaneswar, was too low and, the petitioner accepted the assessment of rent in his anxiety to let out the building. By letter dated 24. 6.1981 (vide Annexure-1) the petitioner moved opposite party No. 1 to make re-assessment of rent of the building. It is alleged that on 2. 11. 1981 opposite party No. 2 on re-assessment fixed the fair rent of the building at Rs. 1584/- per month effective from 15. 9. 1981 (vide Annxure-2) and the same was communicated to the petitioner by opposite party No. 1 by letter...
Tag this Judgment!David C. Jhan Vs. Principal, Ispat College and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori215; 1984(I)OLR564
Pathak, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the opposite party No. 1 (Annexure 5) by which he has cancelled the admission of the petitioner in his college. 2. A brief narration leading to the present writ application is that the petitioner appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination 1983 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, opposite Party No. 2. He was declared by the Board to have passed the examination. Thereafter, the petitioner got himself admitted to the 1st Year Class of Intermediate in Commerce in the Ispat College, Rourkela. During the continuance of his studies in that college he was informed that although he was declared to have come out successful in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1983, the marks allotted to him were wrong, and by a revised Notification of the Board he was declared to have failed. On the basis of that Notification, the opposite par...
Tag this Judgment!Mayadhar Bhoi and anr. Vs. Moti Dibya
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori162; 58(1984)CLT7; 1984(I)OLR503
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Munsif, Ist. Court, Cuttack, rejecting the objection of the judgment-debtors to the issue of Warrant of arrest under Order 21, Rule 37 of the Civil P. C.2. The opposite party obtained a money decree against the petitioners and their father Uchhab, and levied execution thereof in Execution Case No, 26 of 1982. Uchhab expired during the pendency of the proceeding. No substitution was made. The execution proceeded against the petitioners. At this stage, a few relevant facts be noted. Despite service of notice the judgment-debtors did not appear. So, the decree-holder took steps for issue of notice to show cause why warrants of arrest should not be issued against the judgment debtors. The Court rejected the prayer of the decree-holder being of the view that the application was lacking in requisite averments warranting action under Order 21, Rule 37 of the Civil P. C. (for short, 'the Code'). On 8-3-1983 the de...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sobhabati Vs. Lakshmi Chand and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori171; 58(1984)CLT49; 1984(I)OLR560
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is a revision against the decision of the learned Munsif, Bargarh, dismissing the plain-tiff's suit under Section 6, Specific Relief Act, for recovery of possession.2. The property in dispute is 8 decimals in extent located in an important locality in Barpali. The plaintiff's case is that the land which was full of ditches was levelled by her and small kucha hutments were constructed thereon. One of the hutments was occupied by her husband and herself and the rest were let out to others. This continued for three years. When her husband got a job, she shifted to a house in the basti. Nevertheless the property remained in their possession and enjoyment. They had put fence around the plot and used to repair the same year after year until 1978 when defendant 1 acting at the behest of the other defendants unauthorisedly came upon the land and started digging foundation and erecting structures. This furnished the cause of action for the suit.3. The plea of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Pattnaik Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kalinga Iron Works and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori182; 58(1984)CLT119; 1984(I)OLR532
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. The question posed for decision in this case is if a party can be relieved of an agreement that a dispute arising between him and the other contracting party shall be tried in one of the Courts where two or more Courts under the Civil P. C. have jurisdiction to try the suit or proceeding ?2. The facts leading to the present dispute in nutshell are as follows :The petitioner is a private limited company dealing in manufacture of Cast Iron articles. Opposite party No. 1 is a Government of Orissa Undertaking being a unit of Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, opposite party No. 2. The petitioner entered into a contract with opposite party No. 1 for purchase of scrap. The petitioner has alleged that he deposited the security money. It appointed labourers for collection of materials and other staff for supervision thereof. It received a letter from opposite party No. 1 on 3-1-75 for payment of certain amount owed to opposite party No. 1 and to one Ferro Chr...
Tag this Judgment!Satyabhama Das Vs. Smt. Sailabala Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ori180; 58(1984)CLT38; 1984(I)OLR492
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against an order disallowing the plaintiff's prayer for amendment of the plaint by way of addition of a relief of partition in a suit seeking relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. 2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the disputed property is a piece of land necessary for the enjoyment of -the undivided family dwelling house and the transfer by defendant No. 2, a co-sharer, of his half interest in the suit property has entitled him to seek a relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act. So he has sought to buy out the share purchased by defendant No. 1. 3. In paragraph-4 of the written statement defendant No. 1 has averred that the sole relief to repurchase was not maintainable. He has also controverted the assertion of the plaintiff that the suit property was a part of the dwelling house of the undivided family.4. Trial of the suit commenced on 9-12-80 and was closed on 11-12-80. The case was posted for hearing ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »