Orissa Court June 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.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathy Vs. Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Indust ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori42
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This application under Section 115, Civil P.C. is directed against the order dated 31-10-1981 of the Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh in Money Suit No. 86/78, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. for leave to deliver interrogatories to the opposite party. Opposite party, Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, filed the abovementioned suit for recovery ofRs. 28,500/- with costs and interest from the petitioner. The facts pleaded in the plaint, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the defendant Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathy was appointed by the opposite party as Principal Scientist (Ceramics) in its Research institute at Rajgangpur on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/- under appointment Letter No. RGDI dated May 1/14, 1974 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner entered into a service con tract dated 16th May, 74 with the opposite party whereun...
Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sarbeswar Guru an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori270
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The core question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition is that if a creditor filed a suit against the principal debtor and the surety for realisation of the debt and the suit is dismissed for default under Order 8 Rule 5, Civil P. C. against the principal debtor, can it proceed against the surety. The first appellate Court having answered the question in the negative, the plaintiff has filed this application under Section 115, Civil P. C. 2. The petitioner, the Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. filed M. Section No. 521 of 1977 before the Munsif, 1st Court, Cuttack, for realisation of Rs. 1500 from the defendants along with cost and interest in the said suit. The three opposite parties were impleaded as defendants in the said suit. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, was that in pursuance of a scheme for providing gainful employment to qualified engineers and for imparting training to them for the purpose of setti...
State of Orissa Vs. Pradip Kumar Singh
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR111
B.K. Behera, J.1. The respondent, serving as a Tube-well Mechanic attached to the Korkonda Block, stood charged under See. 376 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed rape after breaking open the house of the victim Saibani (P.W. 6), then working as a Lady Sweepress in the Public Health Centre at the same place, On a consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Judge has found that neither of the two charges had been established.2. In an appeal against acquittal, no interference is called for unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unfounded. Even if another view can be taken in favour of the prosecution, the order of acquittal is not to be interfered with.3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. At the stage of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly and justifiably submitted that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The occurrence h...
State Vs. Raghunath Patnaik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR100
B.K. Behera, J.1. The respondent stood charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d). of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for obtaining pecuniary advantage from himself to an extent of Rs.2146-56 paise in the year 1975 by using forged bus warrants at different places in his capacity as a public servant while serving as a Constable attached to the Vigilance Wing of the Police Department at Sambalpur. He also stood charged under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for forging the bus warrants which were valuable securities with the intent to defraud the State Government and gain pecuniary advantage in respect of the aforesaid amount and under Section 471 of the Code for having fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the forged bus warrants having known and having reasons to believe at the time of such use that these documents were forged ones. On a consideration of the prosecution evidence, the learned Spec...
Sukadev Tapaswai and ors. Vs. Sri Sidheswar Mahadev Bija Silod and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori100; 60(1985)CLT208
ORDERB.N. Misra, J.1. Respondents 2 to 25 had filed a petition under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') for declaration that respondent No. 1, Sri Sidheswar Mahadev, was a public institution and that they and the late Abhi Tapaswi (Opp. party No. 1) and appellant No. 4 were the hereditary trustee of the deity. Their case is that their ancestors had installed the deity and they had all along done the Sebapuja and acted as Marfatdars of the deity. They had impleaded appellants 5 and 6 (opposite parties 3 and 4) as representing the Hindu public. The application of the respondents was registered by the learned Asst. Commissioner of Endowments on 10-12-76. The respondents had also filed an application for publicati6n of a notice under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. A draft notice filed by the petitioner was approved and that petition was allowed on the same day. The notice under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. was published i...
Khiradhar Patel and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori215
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a proceeding under Chap. IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The Revenue Officer, Sundargarh initiated a suo motu proceeding under Section 42 of the Act for determining the ceiling surplus lands in the hand of the family of Khiradhar Patel, petitioner No. 1. Khiradhar objected to the draft statement on various grounds one of them being that there has been a partition among Khiradhar and his three sons, petitioners 2 to 4 since the year 1963. The Revenue Officer disbelieved the partition. He came to the conclusion.'....I hold that the younger sons are notseparate from the date of execution of the partition deed....'3. Taking the family to be consisting of five members, the Revenue Officer allowed 10.68 standard acres to be retained and declared 5.52 standard acres as surplus land. This order was confirmed in an appeal under Section 44(2) o...
Balaram Prasad Basu Mallik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR251
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an application by the accused-petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 19. 9. 1983 by which charges have been framed against the accused-petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 471, Indian Penal Code.2. The allegations against the petitioner in the F. I. R. lodged by the Vigilance Inspector are to the effect that the petitioner submitted forged certificate stating that he had passed the Diploma Examination conducted by the City and Guilds of London Institute at Calcutta and on the basis of the said certificate he managed to get an appointment as an Overseer in the Electricity Department of the Government of Orissa on 25. 11. 1966 although he had not passed any such examination as alleged and on the basis of that the petitioner is continuing in service. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the case on 12. 1. 1983 and the learned Magistrate after ...
J. Subba Rao Vs. Brundaban Chandra Sahoo and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR141
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner who is the Manager of the Indian Fare Earths Limited, Chatrapur, being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate dated 24. 10. 1933 ordering him to pay Rs. 100/- towards compensation under Section 250(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' ) has preferred this revision.2. On 4th of March, 1977, the petitioner had written a letter to the Officer-in-charge, Chatrapur P. S. in the district of Ganjam intimating that their Company Bus which was carrying officers of the Company on that day when stopped at Chatrapur near Railway Station Cross, another bus came from behind and three passengers of the latter bus dragged the driver of the Company Bus, abused him and beat him in presence of the officers and staff of the Indian Rare Earths Limited who were in the bus. Of the persons who assaulted the driver was one Mr. Sahu, Cashier of the Andhra Bank at Rambha are another person was working in the Aska Multipurpose Co-operativ...
Jadu Behera and ors. Vs. Dhaneswar Samantaray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT279; 1985CriLJ1732
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioners are accused persons in a complaint case bearing ICC Case No. 20 of 1982 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranpur, On the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party on 25-6-1982 alleging that offences were committed by the petitioners oh 10-10-1981, the learned Magistrate-took cognisance of the offences by order dt. 24-11-1982 and issued process against the accused persons. The present revision is directed against the said order praying to quash the said order as well as the criminal proceedings.2. According to the petitioners, for the self-same incident, the complainant-opposite party lodged an F. I, R. in Rajsunakhala Outpost on 10th of Oct. 1981, which was registered as G. R. Case No. 116 of 1981 under Section 436. Indian Penal Code. The two accused persons in the said G. R. case were Purnachandra Behura and Sarat Kumar Samantaray, but in the F.I.R., the informant had stated that there were several others along with...
Banchanidhi Sahoo Vs. Nilamani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ori247
ORDERG.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the District Judge dt. 12-4-1982 by which order the learned District Judge came to hold that the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 60 of 1981 filed before him was barred by limitation.2. Against the order of the Munsif, Puri, dt. 16-5-1981, in Miscellaneous Case No. 271 of 1980, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge on 21-7-1981. According to the petitioner's case, the learned Munsif delivered the order in the miscellaneous case during the last hours of 16th of May, 1981 which was the last working day of the Court before Summer Vacation. The Court remained closed from 17-5-1981 to 21-6-1981 and reopened on 22-6-1981. The petitioner filed an application for certified copy of the impugned order on the reopening day, i.e. 22-6-1981 and the copy was ready on 1-7-1981, The copy was delivered to the petitioner on 2- 7-1981 and the petitioner filed the appeal on 21-7-1981.3. The short question...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »