Orissa Court November 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.
Natha @ Baikuntha Sahu and ors. Vs. Smt. Haramani Dei
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR303
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) to quash the impugned order dated 9.2.1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, taking cognisance as an offence under Sections 376 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C for short) against the petitioners.2. On the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by the husband of the opposite party, G. R. Case No. 2551 of 1982 under Sections 380 and 376/34, I. P. C, was initiated and after investigation, final report was submitted Thereafter, the opposite party filed a complaint petition registered as I. C. C. Case No. 322 of 1983 against 40 persons for having committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 24, 325, 326, 376, 395, 448 and 506 read with Section 34, I. P. C. By the impugned order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of an offence under Section 376 I. P. C. against the petitioners Murali Naik, Hrushikesha Sahu, Biswanath Sahu and Rama ...
Abdul Khalique Vs. Smt. YasmIn Sultana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori189
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore permitting the opposite party to sue as an indigent person.2. Indisputedly the opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner. Both of them lived in the house of the latter when there seems to have been some discord between them. According to the allegations made by the opposite party, when she was pregnant the petitioner took her out on the plea that it was necessary to get her examined by a doctor, but as a matter of fact left her in the home of her parents. Thereafter, despite requests he is not taking her back to the matrimonial home. She, therefore, intended to institute a suit for dissolution of marriage, for recovery of dower debt amounting to Rs. 950/- and for recovery of articles described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint valued at Rs. 11,391.75. She had, however, no means to pay court-fee worth Rs. 1176.75 on the plaint and so she file...
Netramani Dibya and ors. Vs. Dasarathi Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori235; 61(1986)CLT27
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This Civil Revision arises out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh, refusing to permit the petitioners to file their objection under Section 47, Civil P.C. to the execution of a final decree in a suit for partition. While accepting the revision for further hearing, interim stay of further proceeding in the execution case was passed. Decree-holder-opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed an application for vacating the order of stay. While considering the said petition, I directed the matter to be heard finally without waiting for the service return of notice to the other judgment-debtors who did not have any grievance against the impugned order. 2. Execution Proceeding No. 13 of 1982 was filed for execution of the final decree dt. 17-8-1982 in the partition suit. The said decree was set aside by this Court on 8-11-1982. The proceeding in execution remained stayed pending disposal of the final degree proceeding after the final decree was cate...
Balasore Technical School Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR201
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under 5ec. 39 of the Arbitration Act directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside an award passed by the arbitrator on the objection of the respondents.2. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondents in relation to supply of electrical energy. The respondents enhanced the tariff rate unilaterally and submitted the bills to the appellant at such enhanced rate. The appellant protested against such bills and requested that the bills should be prepared in accordance with the rate agreed upon. The respondents, therefore, threatened to disconnect the electric supply and ultimately disconnected the line on 30-12-1976. The appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act invoicing the arbitration clause of the agreement and the said application was numbered as O. S. No. 127 of 1977. Before the learned Subordinate Judge the appellant also prayed for restoration of the electric line pending fina...
Abdul Hannan Khan and ors. Vs. Chandra Sekhar Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori236
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this application for revision, plaintiffs challenge the order of the trial court refusing to permit amendment of the plaint. The suit was filed on 18-2-1981 for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of Plot No. 1786 measuring 40% decimals. Defendants in their written statement filed on 29-6-1981 claimed that they are in possession having title to the property in dispute. On 13-10-1982, plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was taken up on 7-11-1984 and was allowed. The plaintiffs did not take steps required under Order 6, Rule 18 C.P.C. However, the trial court directed the office to amend the plaint. After taking some adjournments, defendants filed the additional written statement on 4-4-1985. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs filed the petition for amendment of the plaint on 29-4-1985. On 17-6-1985, defendants filed objection to the petition for amendment and the hearing ...
Sashi Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Etc.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-16-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1145
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 1981 and Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1980 were heard analogously and this common judgment will govern both.2. In Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 1981 the appellant Sashi Behera was convicted for an offence under Section 326, Penal Code ('I.P.C for short) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1980 was preferred by him against the order of acquittal passed on his complaint for offences under Sections 148, 323/149 and 427, I.P.C. The facts giving rise to both the appeals are narrated in brief.The parties belong to village Hirma. Sashi Behera is a todday tapper and Umashankar and Gangaram are land-holders. There is. a Kata (water reservoir) in the village. Adjoining the embankment of the Kata Umashankar and Gangaram have got lands. There were two date palms in between the embankment of the Kata and the lands of Umashankar and Gangaram. They claimed that the date palms standing on their respecti...
Harekrushna Mohanty and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-15-1985
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT75; 1986(I)OLR4
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioners in both the cases were serving under the Government of Orissa and have retired from service prior to 1.4.1979. Petitioner No.4th O. J. C. No. 2495/64 is the Cuttack Retired Government Employees Association, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, re-presented by its Secretary. The petitioners have challenged paragraph 5 of the resolution dated 14.1.1980 (Annexure-1) of the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department known as 'Liberalised Pension Scheme', wherein the employees who have retired prior to 31.3.1979 have been deprived of the benefits of the said scheme. They have also challenged the subsequent restriction imposed in the resolution dated 11.4.1985 (Annexure-4) of the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department by which the liberalised pension rule has been made applicable to the pensioners retiring on or before 31.3.1979 with effect from 1.1.1985 though those retiring after that date have been made entitled to the l...
Sri Laxman Naik and ors. Vs. Smt. Ashamoni Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR574
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The decree-holders are the petitioners against an order under Section, 47, Code of Civil Procedure, allowing the objection of the judgment-debtors that the decree is not executable.2. Plaintiffs' suit was for a declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants. The matter came upto this Court in Second Appeal No. 12 of 1975 and the decree was confirmed. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, respondent No. 5, who was defendant No. 5, died leaving behind his legal representatives. However, no substitution was made in his place in the Second Appeal nor was the fact brought to the notice of this Court. The decree was confirmed without taking note of the death of respondent No. 5. When an application for execution was filed, the application under Section 47, C. P. C. was filed objecting to the executability of the decree. This objection has been found favour with the Executing Court and it was held that the decree is not executable. Hence this C...
State of Orissa, Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Irriga ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR584
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. State of Orissa is the petitioner No. 1 in this Civil Revision challenging the order dated 10. 8, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, appointing opposite party No. 2 as Arbitrator in exercise of the power under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Opposite party No. 1 is a works contractor. He entered into an agreement with the State of Orissa for execution of a work and the agreement was executed between the parties which was signed by the Executive Engineer on behalf of the State of Orissa as required under Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the opposite party No. 1 not having been settled the opposite party Nr 1 requested the concerned Chief Engineer for appointment of an Arbitrator, as provided under Clause 23 of the agreement. As the Chief Engineer did not appoint an Arbitrator within the period stipulated under the Act, the opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Se...
Govinda Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-04-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR559
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 23. 10. 1981 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Boudh, Berhampur, by which he dismissed the appeal (though modified the sentence) preferred by the petitioner against the order of his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and sentence of rigonus imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisionment for three months, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Digapahandi.2. Prosecution case is that at about 8, 30 a. m. on 21. 4. 1978 the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) along with his Peon (P. W. 2) and a Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 3) visited the shop of the accused-petitioner in village Dabara where the petitioner was selling dal, spices, oil, etc. P.W.I disclosed his identity to the petitioner and inspected the food articles. He suspected the til oil and turmeric powder to be adulterated. So ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »