Orissa Court October 1985 Judgments
Smt. Draupadi Senapati Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR34
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Draupadi Senapati has filed this application tinderArticle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus quashing theOrder No. 575 dated 18. 2. 1981 of the District Panchayat Officer, Cuttack, communicated to her that the Collector, Cuttack, has been pleased to cancel the order of long term lease of the tank, Tala, Pokhari at Nadiasabaspur under Kusupur Grama Panchayat in her favour and for a direction to the opposite parties to act upon the lease approved by the Collector, Cuttack, underOrder No. 2423/G. P. dated 19-7-1980. The State of Orissa through its Secretary, Community Development Department. The Collector, Cuttack, District Panchayat Officer, Cuttack and the Kusupur Grama Panchayat through its Sarpanch have been impleaded in the application as opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 respectively, Opposite parties 5 to 8 have been granted lease of the tank in question after the impugned order was passed.2. The gist of the petitioner's c...
Tag this Judgment!Straw Products Limited and anr. Vs. the Superintendent, Central Excise ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC162; 1986(24)ELT286(Ori); 1986(I)OLR147
J. K. Mohanty, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the business, inter alia of manufacture and production of paper having its registered office at Jaykaypur, Rayagada, in the district of Koraput ( hereinafter referred to as the Company). Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of petitioner No. 1. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of various qualities of papers including wrapping paper falling under Tariff item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'Act' ). The wrapping paper manufactured by the Company is utilised in the factory of the Company for packing other varieties of paper and paper Boards. From 1972 the Central Excise Authorities had required the Company to pay the duty on the wrapping paper before using, for wrapping the other varieties of paper at the time of clearance of the ream, and accordingly duty was assessed. Since March 16, 1976 duty on the manufacture of paper was being levied ad valorem. The comp...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Pal, Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR579
B.K. Behera, J.1. The three appellants stood charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (The Code for short) for having committed dacoity with Purna Chandra Pradhan, who also stood trial as a co-accused but was acquitted of the charge and four others, in the house of Sushil Kumar Sahu (P. W. 5) in village Salbania in the district of Dhenkanal during the night on January 9/10, 1981, being armed with dangerous instruments and having caused injuries to some of the inmates of the house and for having removed cash and a number of other articles. The appellants bad pleaded not guilty to the charge. While the prosecution had examined twelve witnesses to establish its case, the appellant Babul Pal had examined one witness in his defence to establish that the cash recovered from his possession belonged to him. Reliance had been placed by the prosecution on the evidence of two identifying witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 5 and 7. Besides, in the morning following the night of occurrence, while ...
Tag this Judgment!Kundanlal Agarwal and Five ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR109
B.K. Behera, J.1. Accused of offences punishable under sections 332 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners seek an order of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') after unsuccessfully moving the Court of Session. Of the two offences, the offence punishable under Section 332 is available while the other is not.2. Mr. Mohanty has urged on behalf of the petitioners that there is no case against the petitioners and it is a fit case in which an order for anticipatory bail should be passed. The learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application. He has, however, submitted that the petitioners may not have any apprehension that on their arrest, they will be harassed and humiliated by the arresting authority.3. As observed in AIR 1980 S. C 1632 : (Gurbaksh Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab), the High Court and the Court of Session are to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to bail if the...
Tag this Judgment!Praful Kumar Sahu Vs. Pahali SwaIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR570
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner's prayer for being impleaded as a party in a final decree proceeding having been rejected he has come up to this Court to challenge the said order.O. S. No. 46/1975-I was filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 for partition of the-properties described under schedules Ka and Kha of the plaint. In the said suit Juti Bewa, opposite party No. 3, the mother of opposite party No. 2 and mother-in-law of opposite party No. 1 was impleaded as defendant No. 1. Opposite party Nos. 4 to 7, sisters of Kusuma were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 respectively. It is not necessary to state about the other opposite parties since they arc not concerned in the present proceeding. In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 20th of April, 1977 whereunder plaintiff No. 2, Kusuma Dei and defendants 1 to 5 were held to be entitled to 1/24th share each in Ka, Kha and Ga schedule properties. Thereafter at the instance of the plaintiff the final decree proceeding was in...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Jhadeswar Mahaprabhu and Sri Sri Mukteswar Mahaprabhu Represen ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT565; 1985(II)OLR539
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 44(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The appellants have impugned the order of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments declaring the respondents to be hereditary trustees of the institution 'Sri Sri Jhadeswar Mahaprabhu and Sri Sri Mukteswar Mahaprabhu' of Kamagada in the district of Ganjam and the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments affirming the decision of the Additional Assistant Commissioner. The respondents filed an application under Section 41 of the Act claiming hereditary trusteeship over the institution on the allegation that the two deities were installed by the Raja of Dharakot and the founder granted the properties for the Bhograg and other festivals of the deities. It is the further case of the respondent that the said founder appointed the forefathers of the respondents as hereditary archaks to perform the sevapuja and management of t...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Padhi Vs. Golokha @ Golla Karna and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR89
G.B. Pattnaik, J1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying to expunge certain remarks made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aska, in his judgment in G. R. Case No. 22/79 and to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to pay compensation to each of the accused persons in the said case on a finding that there was no sufficient ground for causing arrest of the accused persons.2. The petitioner was the informant in G. R. Case No. 22/79 and on the basis of his information a criminal case was instituted against opposite parties 1 to 4 on the allegation that the opposite parties forcibly entered into the homestead of the petitioner armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the field servants. Though charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite parties under sections 147/148/149/447/448/323/379/506, I. P. C. the opposite parties stood the trial for the offence under section 448, I. P. C. The learned Judicial Magi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Mukteswar Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR137
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent. The trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, acquitted him. The appellate judgment is assailted in this appeal.2. The respondent was charged under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust of a gross sum of Rs. 5,220.80 paise during the year 1975-76 between December, 1975 and February 1976.3. The prosecution cases in brief, is that the respondent as Sarpanch took advance of a total sum of Rs. 3,180/- for repair of roads and Rs. 304/- for dewatering wells. He incorrectly entered into account a total sum of Rs. 1,330/- showing to have spent the same on various repair works and he could not account for the empty gunny bags whose price is Rs. 180/- and the ration cards whose price is Rs. 226.80 paise.4. The trial Court held that the gunny bags were not entrusted to the respondent. The appellate Court ha...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikari Charan Tripathy and ors. Vs. Jagabandhu Mishra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR20
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of Court to quash a proceeding under Sec 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') pending against them on the ground that by operation of Sub-Section (5) of Section 116 of the Code. On expiry of six months from the date of commencement of inquiry, the proceeding stood terminated. The petitioners in fact carried a revision to the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1984 and the learned Sessions Judge rejected the same on a finding that the Magistrate has passed an order on 3.1.1984 allowing continuance of the proceeding beyond the statutory period.2. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the petitioners contends that Sub-Section (6) of Section 116 is mandatory in nature and would apply propmo v. gre if six months period lapses from the date of commencement of an inquiry and the inquiry is not completed. It is no doubt permissible for a Magistrate to record in writing, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagaban Nayak (and After Him) Kailash Naik and ors. Vs. Uchhab Naik a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR450
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. Members of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') are the petitioners. In this application they have challenged the order of the learned Sessions judge dated 21-11-1980 in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 1980 holding the order of the Magistrate dated 8-7-1980 directing issue of writ of delivery of possession to be without jurisdiction.2. The facts of the case, so far as relevant in the context of the present dispute, may be briefly stated. On the report of the Officer-in-charge, Kanpur Police Station, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was initiated by the learned Executive Magistrate, Narasinghpur, by his order dated 20.10.1971 issuing notice to both parties restraining them from entering upon the disputed land asking them to show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute against either of them. After the parties filed their show cause and documents in sup port of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »