Orissa Court July 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.
Misra and Company Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori22
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This Civil Revision arises out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore refusing the prayer of the petitioner to restrain the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 from executing the balance portion of the work left unexecuted by the petitioner.2. Petitioner is a works contractor. He entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 1 to make some constructions. While the petitioner was executing the work, opposite party No. 1 issued notice to him that theagreement with him had come to an end with effect from 1-12-1984. The dispute arising out of the said action of the opposite party No. 1 was referred to the Deputy General Manager (opposite party No. 3) by the General Manager (opposite party No. 2). as required under the arbitration clause in the agreement. Apprehending that there would not be a fair settlement of the dispute by the opposite party No. 3, petitioner filed an application for removal of the Arbitrator on the ground of the interestedness. T...
Hadibandhu Mohapatra Vs. Kuntala Barik @ Kuntala Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT396; 1985(II)OLR293
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This petition under Section 115 read with Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short) has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the decision Of the lower appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial Court and dismissing the suit.The petitioner filed the suit against the opposite parties for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,668/- on the allegation that defendant No. 1 Bhagaban Barik, as Karta of the joint family of the defendants, took a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from him on 12. 6. 1968 undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Having failed to receive the amount from the loanee, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for realisation of the amount. The further case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 had passed on a receipt Ext. 1 in token of receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. Subsequently he had paid a sum of Rs. 10/- towards interest on 8. 4. 1971 and endorsement to this effect was made on the reverse o...
The General Manager Kalinga Iron Works (Spun Pipe Plant) Vs. B. Rajkum ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT428; 1985(II)OLR363
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. General Manager of a factory belonging to a State Public Sector Undertaking is the petitioner in this Civil Revision, which arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge, Champua, refusing the prayer of the petitioner to call for the records from the Arbitrator.2. By order dated 17. 7. 1980 in Misc. Case No. 78 of 1979, the Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar, in exercise of power under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') appointed Shri Prananath Bhuyan, Advocate, Keonjhar,to settle the disputes between the petitioner and the opposite party. The opposite party was a works contractor executing the work for the petitioner. The Arbitrator decided the dispute on the basis of the documents filed, oral evidence recorded and his local inspection awarding Rs. 3, 70,000/- to the claimant. He also awarded pendente lite interest @ 10% from 15. 1. 1979 on the basis of the submission of the counsel for the claimant opposite party since th...
State of Orissa Vs. Haradhan Debta
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori96; 60(1985)CLT314
Behera, J.1. The State is in appeal against the award by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') and the only contention raised by the learned Advocate-General is that the valuation of the 'Munda' (water reservoir) measuring Ac. 1.21 decimals at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre is on the higher side. We find no force in this contention. As has rightly been submitted by Mr. Sinha for the respondent, when the water is let out, a 'Munda' would turn out to be a very good variety of land for the purpose of cultivation. That apart, the costs of construction of the 'Munda' has also been included by the learned Subordinate Judge in assessing its value. In our view, this valuation cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive.2. Inviting our attention to the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1985 Delhi 228 (decided on December 6, 1984), Mr. Sinhal has ...
Manmohan Lall and anr. Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Col ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR229
P.C. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Court:, Cuttack, in Land Acquisition Case No 328 of 1976 which arises out of a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1834).2. A vast stretch of land situated in Gandarpur was acquired for the project known as Housing Accommodation Scheme in Gandarpur. The appellants in this appeal are the owners of a piece of land measuring Ac. O. 930 decimals appertaining to plot No. 568 in Maura Gandarpur which was acquired under the aforesaid scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 25,000/-per acre. The appellants being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, moved for a reference to be made to the Court for determination of proper compensation. The appellants claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per gunth of the acquired land. The learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dated 22. 4. 1981 award...
Narayan Panda and ors. Vs. Mahendra Ram and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-26-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT266; 1985(II)OLR327
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this Civil Revision, plaintiffs are the petitioners against the appellate order arising out of a proceeding under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.2. Title Suit No. 121 of 1980 was filed in the Court of the Munsif, 1st Court, Cuttack, for permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of 18 decimals of Gharbari land in Plot No. 257 under Khata No. 71 of mouza-Bhajimul. Case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was recorded in the names of their ancestors in the 1930 settlement. Plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the disputed land growing vegetables therein. Plaintiffs' further claim is that on the suit land there are valuable fruit-bearing trees and bamboo clumps. The cause of action for the suit was the threat of the defendants to dispossess the plaintiffs and out away the trees and bamboo clumps. With the above allegations, the plaintiffs prayed for ad interim injunction against the def...
Manulal Alias Munulal Behera Vs. Smt. Kunti Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT301; 1985(II)OLR261
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, in Misc. Case No. 28 of 1979 directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 40/- pet month. 2. The opposite party filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') alleging that she is the legally manned wife of the petitioner and their marriage took place in 1972-73. After having lived happily for seven years, she was ill-treated by her-husband, the petitioner, as a result of which it was difficult for her to cope up with her husband The husband thereafter tortured her and left her in her mother's house with the promise that he would come and take back the wife, but he never returned. The wife tried to go back to her husband's house, but was in vain. Ultimately, as she was unable to maintain herself, she had to file the application under Section 125 of the Code claiming...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Matias Burla a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT257; 1985(II)OLR288
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '). 2. It is not in dispute that truck bearing No. ORJ 2159, belonging to respondent No. 2, met with an accident resulting in the death of two workmen employed by respondent No. 2 in the truck. The appellant is the insurer of the truck and respondent No. 1 in both the appeals are the legal representatives of the deceased workmen. There is no dispute in these appeals that the two workmen died in the course of their employment. 3. The Commissioner under the Act held that respondent No. 2, being the employer of the two deceased workmen, is responsible to pay the compensation under Section 3 of the Act. He, however, held that the liability of the employer can be enforced against the insurer. Accordingly, the Commissioner directed that the insurer shall deposit the compensation amount determined in the proceedings within two month...
Nityananda Majhi Vs. Sipra Das and Etc.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori102
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Both these appeals were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve common questions of fact and law. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 173 of 1980 is directed against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree in Money Suit No. 105 of 1977 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 303 of 1980 is directed against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 71-149 of 1978-79.2. Money Suit No. 105 of 1977 was filed for compensation and damages for the loss of character of the plaintiff; Sipra Das and also for loss of opportunity for her marriage due to illicit pregnancy through the defendant and the delivery of the illegitimate child Nandita and for defendant's refusal to marry her in breach of his promise to do so. Title Suit No. 71-149 of 1978-79 was filed by Nandita, the illegitimate child, for her maintenance, present and future. Both the suits were posted to 22-6-1979 for hearing. On that day, the defendant ...
Abhay Kumar Nayak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented Through the Sec ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR239
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This case has brought to lime light the havoc that cold and rigid approach and attitude may cause to a human being when a modicum of compassion and humanism could have brought about his salvation. On the forensic plane, however, it raises the question : Is the dismissal of the petitioner-a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force-just, fair and reasonable ?2. The Central Reserve Police Force was constituted under Central Act LXVI of 1949. Inter alias, its duty was to preserve and restore order in any local area within the Union in the event of disturbance therein. The petitioner was appointed to the force as a constable with effect from September 20, 1971. For a decade he served at different places inside the Union and at the relevant time he was posted at Bhubaneswar, the battalion headquarters. On May 11, 1983, he was commanded to relieve a constable of the 66th battalion who was to proceed on leave. He was to accompany a unit which was also proceeding to Mizo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »