Orissa Court April 1985 Judgments
Palia Bewa Vs. Parbati Kumari Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori62
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Munsif D/- 15-2-1985 allowing the prayer of defendant 12 to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination by him.2. Plaintiffs suit (T. S. No. 63 of 1984) is one for injunction against defendants 1 to 11 not to put up any construction and interfere with possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property. According to the plaint case, in a partition between father of the plaintiff and his co-sharer (defendant 11), the disputed property fell to, the share of plaintiff's father and he executed a registered deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 10 and 11 without having any right, title or interest over the same have executed sale-deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 9 who are threatening to put up construction and hence plaintiffs suit for injunction.2A. After the trial began and plaintiff had given her evidence, an application was filed by four, persons to be impleaded as party-defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhu Charan Pradhan and ors. Vs. Banambar Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori213
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners challenging the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, allowing an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). 2. O. S. No. 10/95 of 1981/79-I was decreed ex parte on 30-3-1981 and an application to set aside the said ex parte judgment and decree was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code on 12-7-1982. In the said application, defendant No. 1 asserted that the suit was originally pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, but it was transferred to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge on 5-2-1981, but no notice of such transfer was given to the defendants, nor the defendants' counsel intimated the said fact. As a result, the defendants has no knowledge about the said transfer. Consequently, the defendants were set ex parte on 30-3-1981 and the suit was decreed ex parte. It was further asserted by the defendants that on account of men...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kunjalata Purohit Vs. Tahsildar, Sambalpur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori115; 60(1985)CLT139
Mohapatra, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders in O.L.R. Case No. 303 of 1974, a proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). 2. A suo motu proceeding under Section 42 of the Act was initiated by the Revenue Officer, Sambalpur in the name of Byamakesh Purohit, the husband of the petitioner. The landholder objected to the draft statement claiming that his major married son had separated as such before the 26th day of Sept., 1970 and is not a member of the family. Specific parcels of land possessed by the father and the son separately were mentioned in the schedule to the objection. Local enquiry was made by the Revenue Officer, who also recorded the statements of different persons on 16-5-1975. On 19-5-1975 the arguments were heard and the case was posted to 30-5-1975 directing the Amin to submit information regarding partition in the family of B...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Dusasana Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR1
Behera, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent who stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having committed the murder of his wife. The learned Sessions Judge, having applied Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Code, convicted the respondent under Section 304 Para I thereof and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. It has been reported by the High Court office that the respondent has rot preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. As has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondent, being deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation offered by his deceased-wife who had abused the respondent in most filthy languages, killed her.2. The test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in whi...
Tag this Judgment!Sashi Bhusan Kar. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR504
B.K. Behera, J.1. A Senior Mining Officer, the appellant stood charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for having obtained for himself pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- on April 26, 1979, while functioning as such at Joda, from Gopinath Mohanty (P. W. 2), the Manager of Murgabeda Mines at Joda, serving under the mine owner Mr. Niranjan Patnaik (P. W. 8), by corrupt and illegal means and by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code ('the Code' for short) for having accepted the amount of Rs. 2,000/- from P. W. 2 as gratification other then legal remuneration with the 'motive for doing or forbearing or for showing favour in the exercise of his official functions as the Senior Mining Officer posted at Joda.2. I would narrate briefly the case of the prosecution presented at the trial. After the appellant joined as the Senior Mining Officer at Jo...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Jahir Muhammad and Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT91; 1985(I)OLR609
B.K. Behera, J.1. Arising out of the same judgment and order of the appellate Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners and maintaining the orders of conviction passed against them, these two rivisions have been heard together and will be governed by this common order.2. The petitioners' firm M/s. Rohit and Company of which the petitioner Sk. Jahir Muhammad was the Manager had sold Besan as per the receipt ( Ext. 7 ) dated 23, 3. 1978 to the shop of M/s. Sukaran Das Purusottam Das at Jaipur Road, as alleged by the prosecution. The Food Inspector ( P. W. 1 ) chose April 1, 1978, to visit the shop at Jaipur Road in the company of P. W. 2 and on finding Besan exposed for sale for human consumption to be adulterated, took sample and after observance of formalities sent it for examination by the Public Analyst and it was found to be adulterated. On obtaining the order of sanction to prosecute the petitioners and the partners of the shop at Jajpur Road, a criminal prosecution ...
Tag this Judgment!Parsuram Dobei and ors. Vs. Bichhanda Charan Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori93
Pathak, C.J.1. By this writ application the petitioner assails the judgment passed by the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Balasore, in O. L. R. Revision No. 23 of 1981 by which the order dated 19-7-1981 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Bhadrak in O. L. R. Appeal No. 59 of 1979 has been set aside.2. The proceeding in this case is under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Act') which is a piece of beneficial legislation to ensure the rights and privileges of tenants in relation to the landlord.3. A brief narration of the facts leading to the present writ petition is that the opposite party No. 1 filed an application Under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act for determination of his possession as well as the benefits accrued to him as a tenant under the landlords Parsuram Dwibedi, present petitioner No. 1, and late Basudeb Dwibedi. The learned Revenue Officer rejected the application of the opposite party No. 1. Thereupon, the opposite party No. 1 preferred an app...
Tag this Judgment!K. Malles Rao Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR497
B.K. Behera, J.1. Hare is an unfortunate case of a husband killing his wife by dealing fist blows and kicks on her stomach and other parts and the death was owing to rupture of the liver as a result of the assault by the appellant on October 22, 1980, at Bhubneswar. Equally unfortunate, however, is the order of conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life in a case of this nature by wrongly applying the fourth clause of Section 300 of the Code.2. As regards the assault by the appellant on the person of his wife (to be described hereinafter as the 'deceased'), there was the clear and cogent evidence of three close neigbours of the appellant (P. Ws. 1 to 3) who had testified that after a sudden quarrel, the appellant had dealt kicks and fist blows on person of his wife who fell down and ultimately died. We are, however, not prepared to place any reliance on the testimony of P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Das and anr. Vs. Gadadhar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori173
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants 1 and 13 are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, in O. S. No, 98 of 1968.2. The suit is one for partition amongst the four branches of Laxman, Khetramohan, Sitaram and Rama, their common ancestor being one Kusun Das. Laxman has two sons Jagannath and Harekrushna. Jagannath's son Baidyanath is defendant No. 3. Harekrushna is defendant No. 4 and his son Gopinath is defendant No. 14. Khetramohan's wife is Brundabati and their three sons are Gadadhar, Gangadhar and Bhagaban. Gadadhar is plaintiff No. 1 and his son Ganapati is plaintiff -No, 2. Gangadhar is defendant No. 1 and his son Sripati is defendant No. 13. Bhagaban is defendant No. 2. Sitaram has two sons --Chakradhar and Chemei. Chakradhar's wife Aparti is defendant No. 5 and their two sons and a daughter -- Nanda, Panda and Sabitri are defendants 6,7 and 8 respectively. Chemei's widow is Bayani (defendant No. 9) and their sons Musi and Sachindra are defend...
Tag this Judgment!Chakradhar Pradhan Vs. Asali Dei and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: 1985(I)OLR589
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhole, dated 8th of November, 1982, in Criminal Misc. Case No .1 of 1979 by which order the learned Magistrate, has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/-to opposite party No 1 and Rs. 60/- to opposite party No. 2. 2 . Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 125 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') alleging that they are the wife and son respectively of the petitioner, petitioner having married opposite party No. 1 in Gandhary from by exchange of garlands in temple and out of their wedlock the son (opposite party No. 2) is born. It was further alleged that the petitioner-husband refused to maintain the wife and the minor child who have no source of maintenance where as the petitioner has sufficient means.3. In support of the case, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the wife. The husband den...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »