Orissa Court October 1985 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.
Sashi Bhusan Pati and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori218; 60(1985)CLT591
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The scope of Section 73 of the Evidence Act is the core question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 115, Civil P.C. By the impugned order the trial Court has allowed the application of opposite party No. 1, State Bank of India to direct the petitioners to give their handwriting and signatures in court for the purpose of comparison with disputed writings through the help of a handwriting expert.2. The opposite party 1 filed Money Suit No. 22/80 before the Subordiante Judge, Jajpur for realisation of a sum of Rs. 40,620.75 from the petitioners and opposite party 2. The account in question stood in the name of opposite party 2. The allegations material for the purpose of the present proceeding are that petitioner 1, Sashi Bhusan Pati operated the account on several occasions and he withdrew the total sum of Rs. 34,380 unauthorisedly from the account of opposite party 2. This having been detected by the authority subsequently, the said...
Kailash Chandra SwaIn Vs. Bhaskar Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT555; 1985(II)OLR576
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The order of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar, refecting the petitioner's application under Order 23, Rule 1(3), Civil Procedure Code, for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, is sought to be impeached in this revision petition.2. The petitioner, Kailash Chandra Swain, filed O. S. No. 54 of 1980-I against the opposite parties praying for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with possession of the plaintiff without due process of law and for a decree for Rs. 600/- against the defendants towards damages. The suit land was described as an area of Ac. 0.45 decimals in Plot No. 706/1136 under khata No. 256 of village Chandol. As per the description given in the plaint all the defendants are residents of village Chandol.During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 23, Rule 1(3), C. P. C., was filed by the plaintiff mainly on the ground that some of the villagers of the suit village including the...
Rourkela Workers Union Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR25
J.K. Mohanty. J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India by the Rourkela Workers Union, a trade union functioning in the Rourkela Steel Plant for quashing the order of the State Government dated 20.3.1978 (Annexure-4) refusing to refer an in Mistrial dispute for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.2. The petitioner Union submitted a 14 point charter of demands to opposite party No. 2 M/s. Hind Timber Mart. Rourkela. The petitioner Union moved opposite party No. 2 several times from 1974 and finally on 19.8.976 for lifting the lock-out and settling the disputes and sent a copy of all the Setters including the last fetter to opposite party No. 3 the Assistant Labour Officer. Rourkela, vide Annexure-1. Opposite party No. 3 initiated a conciliation proceeding and called upon both the parties to state their case. Opposite Party No. 2 refused to participate in the proceeding. ding Opposite party No. 3 by his report dated 1....
Ramesh Chandra Garabadu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT595; 1986(I)OLR187
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short), the petitioner, a deafer of control commodities of Bhubaneswar has prayed for quashing the order dated 25-5-1981 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, taking cognisance of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ( 'Act' for short) for contravention of Clause 3 of Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order ('Order' for short).2. The Inspector of Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, inspected the business premises of the petitioner at Bhubaneswar, on 3. 10. 1980 in between 6 p. m. and 8 p. m. . The petitioner was present at the time of inspection. It was found that the list indicating the opening stock essential commodities in his possession and the retail selling prices thereof as on 3. 1G. 1980 was not prominently displayed in the shop, but was kept inside out of the view of customers. The list displayed the aforesaid facts...
State of Orissa Vs. Sadini Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR524
Pathak, C.J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 11.12 1981 passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna, in Sessions Case No. 24/23 of 1981 by which Sadini Dei, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1982, has been convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo R. 1. for one year.2. Both the appeals were heard together and one set of argument was advanced by learned counsel appearing on both sides. Hence, this common judgment will govern both the appeals.3. While admitting the Government Appeal on 19. 2. 1982 this Court directed issue of notice to the respondent Sadini Dei to show cause why the punishment may not be enhanced to a substantive term of five years' R. I. Similarly, while admitting the Criminal Appeal, this Court by order dated 15. 1. 1982 directed issue of notice to the appellant Sadini to show cause why the sentence of one year's R. I. may not be enhanced to a minimum period of three years' R. I.4. A thumb-na...
i.D.L. Chemicals Limited, Rourkela Vs. Income-tax Officer (Recovery), ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori136
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision. It has assailed the order of the trial court answering two issues against it preliminarily.2. Plaintiff is a company having its registered office at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. It carries on its business in Orissa having established factory area at Rourkela for manufacture of explosives. It entrusted execution of some of the Civil Construction work in the factory area at Rourkela to defendant No. 6 B. R. Patel. At that stage, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-A, Rourkela issued a notice dt. 15-6-1971 purporting to be under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for withholding payments of certain amount to Defendant No. 6 towards the arrear tax of Defendant No. 7 M/s. East West Construction Company. Plaintiff sent a reply that DefendantNo. 7 is not connected with it in any manner. Defendant No. 2 intimated the plaintiff that Defendant No. 6 is a partner of the Firm, Defendant No. 7, in his letter dt. 4-9-1971...
Kashinath Behera Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR508
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (for short 'the Act), but reducing the sentence.2. The prosecution case in short is that on 23. 4. 1980 the officers of the Excise Department (P. Ws. 2 and 3) searched the house of the appellant in the presence of an Executive Magistrate (P. W. 1) and two other independent witnesses and seizsd 9 quintals and 15 K. Gs. of Mohua flower kept in 24 bags, as well as, some weighing implements by seizure-list (Ext. 1. Mohua flower being an intoxicating drug could not be possessed without a valid licence in excess of the permissible limit. There-fore, after investigation was over P, W. 3 submitted a prosecution report against the petitioner for contravention of Section 47(a)of the Act.3. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner completely denied...
Lokanath Behera (Deleted) and anr. Vs. Birabara Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori208
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is the petitioner against a reversing judgment.2. Plaintiff admittedly a registered moneylender advanced Rs. 800/- on the basis of a hand-note (Ext. 1) on 23-3-1968 to the petitioner and his father Lokanath. In the hand-note there are two endorsements by Lokanath on 6-2-1971 and 25-1-1974, paying some money towards interest whereby he acknowledged the loan. As no further endorsement was made and the suit loan was not discharged, plaintiff filed O. S. No. 6/77, Class-III, in the Court of learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar for realisation of the loan against Lokanath and Raghunath.3. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it was asserted that he was a registered money-lender having licence of the year 1966 from the Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar, which was subsequently renewed in 1971 and 1975. In the joint written statement filed by the defendants on 20th July, 1977, the suit was alleged to be not maintainable in view of the recent amendment to the Orissa Moneylend...
Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR494
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against her, or in the alternative for a direction to afford reasonable opportunity to defend herself at all stages at the said proceeding.2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as the Lady Medical Officer in Grade II of the Central Health Service under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and was posted to the Posts and Telegraphs Dispensary at Cuttack with effect from 20. 5 1968, Ever since, she has been serving with utmost devotion to duty coupled with high integrity, so much so that she was commended by the Director of Postal Services and the Assistant Director General (Complaints) for effective control of medical re-imbursement claims of postal employees resulting in serving of expenditure on that account. The control exercised by her in that direction created enemies in the department. With regard to the appointment of one Pramila Moharana...
K.P. Bhowmick Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR80
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a member of the Indian Police Service seeks the quashing of the decision of the Government as communicated by memo No. 28026/Gen.dated 3.12.1980 (Amexure-14) rejecting his representation and for a direction for inclusion of this name in the select list either of the year 1967 or 1968 for his promotion to the I. P. S. Cadre with effect from 30. 6.1967 and for assigning 1963 as his year of allotment and for other consequential benefits.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Orissa Police Service Cadre on 26.6.1958. He was confirmed with effect from 26.6.1961. The petitioner has alleged that one Mr. N. R. Patnaik who was recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 1.5.1960 and confirmed in the rank with effect from 1.5.1963 was declared senior by the Government by order dated 27.6.1964, Annexure-2. His representation to Government p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›