Orissa Court September 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.
Sanatan Mohanty and ors. Vs. Baidhar Rout and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Ori66
B.N. Misra, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the affirming judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak. The dispute relates to Ac. 0. 11 decimals of agricultural lands on the western side of Plot No. 2205 with an area of Ac. 0. 21 decimals appertaining to khata No. 89 in Mouza Tilo.2. The two plaintiffs are brothers. The plaint case is that defendant No. 2 was the owner in possession of the disputed land and Ac. 0.06 decimals of land situated to the west of Plot No. 2203 with an area of Ac. 0. 14 decimals. On 20-2-1956 defendant No. 2 sold the aforesaid lands to defendant No. 3 by aregistered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 120.00 and the latter took over possession of the said land as the owner from the date of his purchase. On 20-9-1971 defendant No. 3 sold the aforesaid lands and other lands comprising a total area of Ac. 0. 55 decimals to the plaintiffs by a registered deed to sell for a consideration of Rs. 2,500.00 and since the date ...
Gunduchi Patnaik and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR480
B.K. Behera, J.1. The two appellants, their father Chintamani. Chintamani's sisters's son Sukanta anda co-villager Chhatia alias Purna Chandra stood charged under Sections 148 and 302 read withSection 149 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short, the 'Code') for having formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and for commission of the murder of Dayanidhi Patnaik (here in after described as the 'deceased') in village Kalyanpur in the district of Puri on August 12, 1979. They also stood separately charged under Section 302 read with Section 24 of the Code for having committed the murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common-intention. It was alleged that there had been a dispute between Chintamani on the one hand and the deceased on the other relating to the possession of a house which the deceased had locked. On the day of occurrence, on seeing that it lad been unlocked, the deceased challenged as to who had unlocked the house. Upon this, the co-accused Sukanta asked t...
Mir NabiruddIn Vs. Mir SalimuddIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR1045
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application for a certiorari to quash the determination of the Revenue Officer in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.2. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short, the 'Act') for a declaration that he was the raiyat in respect of a holding, 4.5 decimals in extent. The application was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 1052 of 1976. On 8.8.1976, the Revenue Officer rejected the petition holding that the application was not maintainable under Section 9 of the Act. On 2.9.1976, opposite party No.1 filed a fresh petition in respect of 2.5 decimals out of the property which was the subject-matter of the earlier proceeding. He claimed that he was in occupation of the house and homestead as a tenant since long and prayed that he should be declared as a raiyat in respect thereof The Revenue Officer called for a report from the Revenue Inspector. After receiving the report, the Revenue Off...
D. Tirupati Rao Vs. B. Gopal Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR1053
B.N. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22.7.1982 passed by learned Munsif, in M.J.C. No. 7 of 1982, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C.2. The following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Monthly tenant under the opposite party in respect of a house in Jeypore town which belongs to the opposite party. The opposite party filed House Rent Control Case No. 11 of 1976 in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Jeypore, against the petitioner for eviction. The ground on which eviction was sought was that the petitioner was a willful defaulter in the matter of payment of house rent and as such liable to be evicted under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On 10.8.1979 the petitioner and the opposite party filed the following joint compromise petition :'COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY BOTH PARTIES RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-That both parties have agreed and ...
Benudhar Jena Vs. Prabir Chandra Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori117
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. All the three revisions arise out of three suits for identical relief against the defendant who is the petitioner in the three Civil Revisions. The cause of action arose on account of the breach of an agreement dt. 23-3-1959 whereunder the monthly remuneration received by defendant as Managing Director was to be divided into four equal shares and distributed among the four executants of the agreement. It is alleged by the plaintiff in each case that after March, 1962, the defendant did not distribute the remunerations as agreed. Hence the three suits were filed for accounts. Defendant in his written statement in each suit challenged the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsif and also the sufficiency of the court-fee payable.2. After the issues were framed, defendantapplied for deciding the issue of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsif as a preliminary issue. Plaintiffs raised objection of the ground that the iss...
Smt. Nishemani SwaIn and ors. Vs. Maheswar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ori128
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Claimants in a proceeding under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act II of 1939) are the appellants.2. The impugned order reads as follows : 'The petitioners are absent on repeated calls.No steps taken although the time at present is 12.30 P.M. Opposite party No. 1 present through his Advocate. Other opposite parties are absent and no steps taken. Enquiry of the case is taken up. Opposite party No. 1 denies to adduce any evidence. There is no evidence to prove the claims of the petitioners. Hence, the case is dismissed as claim not proved. Parties are to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.3. In the memorandum of appeal, it has been stated on affidavit that the counsel was proceeding to the Tribunal on a Scooter with another Advocate, On the way as there was mechanical trouble, the Scooter had to be repaired for which there was delay in reaching the office of the Tribunal. It was stated that on 4-1-1983, though the case was fixed for...
Pitambar Dehury and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ424
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in Sessions Trial No. 16-A of 1979 and all the appeals being against the common judgment they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. There are eight accused-appellants in all. Six of them have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1981. Two other accused persons have preferred Jail Criminal Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1981. Jail Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1981 is at the instance of accused Upasi Behera who is also appellant No. 5 in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1981. The accused-appellants have been convicted under different sections of the Penal Code and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment thereunder in the following manner :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name of the accused-appellant Offence for which convicted Sentence imposed.--------------------------...
Purusottam Khandai Vs. the District Magistrate and
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ741
P.C. Misra, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for an order in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally detained. The detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack on 25-5-84 in exercise of the powers conferred on him Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (7 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack shows that he was satisfied that the petitioner who is a Storage Agent of Pattamundai was found acting in a prejudicial manner to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, essential to the community and was committing an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and that he had acted in a manner for making wrongful gain which had defeated and, would tend to defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The District Magist...
Paraga Pradhan Vs. Balaji Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(II)OLR939
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda, on 25. 3. 1981 refusing to cancel the preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') under Sub-section (5) thereof. The petitioner is a member of the second party.2. The opposite parties and the petitioner belong to village Rajpur within Jharsuguda Subdivision of Sambalpur district. Opposite parties 1 and 2 made an application before the Subdivisional Magistrate stating therein that they are in possession of a piece of homestead land in the village with an area of 36 feet x34 feet for move than ten years and had constructed a house thereon. The petitioner with other members of the second party without having any right, demolished the house on the aforesaid disputed land on 20. 2. 1981. Because of such action, there was apprehension of breach of peace and so they prayed for action under Section 144 of the ...
C.D. Kamdar and ors. Vs. State of Orissa, Represented Through the Secr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-11-1984
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR291; (1985)TaxL.R.2497
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. All the petitioners, thirty-nine in number, carry on the business of purchase of Mohua flowers in the State of Orissa and export of the same outside the State. They have assailed the legality and validity of the Board's Excise ( Fixation of Fees on Mohua Flowers) Rules 1976, and, in particular, notification No. 454-XIV. 3/82-EX. dated the 5th February, 1982, enhencing the rate of fee for issue of pass to export Mohuaflower. As all the writ applications involve common question of law, they are heard together and shall be disposed of by this Judgment. 2. Mohua flower is the matured sugary flower of Mohua tree the botanical name of which is Bassia Latifolia or Bassia Longifolia. These trees grow in abundance in the forests of Orissa and also in some private lands. A reference to the commercial Products of India by Sir George Watt, published in the year 1908 at Page-118 and the Silviculture of India. Trees, Volume 11 by Mr. R. S. Troup, published in 1921 at page-( 41 b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »