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.
State of Orissa Vs. Nenkuri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ439
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Atigul, in Sessions Trial No. 18-A of 1981, who has acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 395 and 397, I..P.C. This appeal has been admitted against Nenkuri alias Lokanath Naik, Alekha Naik alias Sahu, Judhistir Naik and Subudhi Naik and has been dismissed as against others.2. The Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges against six known accused persons and two others under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. on the allegation that they committed dacoity in the house of Pati Sahu at night on 25-5-1981 in village Kusumghati and framed charge against accused Sadasiva Sahu under Section 412, Penal Code. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge acquitted accused Sadasiva of the charge under Section 412, Penal Code, for which he stood trial; acquitted accused Biranchi of the charges under Sections 395 and 397; and acquitted accused Nenkuri alias Lokanath, Alekha, Judhistir, Subudh...
Sri Nayanananda Nayak Vs. Ahalya Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR216
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the petitioner. Aggrieved by an order refusing to entertain an application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, this Civil Revision has been filed.2. I have perused the impugned order. I have also beard Mr. P. Kar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Misra (1), the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. 3. Petitioner filed an application under Section 151, C. P. C. challenging the inequitability in distribution of the lands by the Commissioner. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 72 of 1979. An application for restoration of the Misc. Case under Section 151, C. P. C, was rejected on the ground that no relief can be granted under that provision. Therefore, another application was filed challenging the report of the Commissioner which was the subject-matter of Misc. Case No. 72 of 1979. This second application was registered as Misc. Case No. 133 of 1981. The learned. Subordinate Judge has rejected this...
Bimala Dei Vs. Karna Mulia
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT224; 1985(II)OLR206
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party who had obtained an order of monthly maintenance of Rs. 60/- in an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The application for maintenance was filed on 24. 6. 1977 and the Magistrate allowed the said application by order dated 24. 4.1978. Against the same order, the husband carried a revision to the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same by order dated 13. 9.1979. Thereafter, on 14. 11. 1979, an application was filed by the wife invoicing the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 of the Code. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order has limited the claim of the wife to a period of one year from- the date of filing of the application, i. e., upto 14. 11. 1978 on the ground that under the first proviso to Sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 of the Code, no warrant can be issued for recovery of a...
State of Orissa Vs. Tari Syam Das Alias Shyama Sundar Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR193
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The respondent stood his trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baripada, under Sees. 448, 354 and 341, Indian Penal Code, in Trial Case No. 238 of 1980. By order dated 18. 7. 1981, the learned Magistrate has recorded an order of acquittal and hence the present appeal by the State.2. According to the prosecution case, Prahalad Mall (P. W. 3), the husband of the victim, was a tenant in one of the houses of the accused. On 4. 4. 1980, said Prahalad had been to Calcutta leaving his wife and children in the rented house. On 6. 4. 1980, Prahalad returned home in the evening and learnt from his wife that the accused had come to their house in his absence and outraged her modesty. Hence, he lodged the First Information Report on 7. 4. 1980 in Baripada Police Station. The First Information Report reveals that while the victim lady (P. W. 4) was in her house, the accused came to the house and asked about the time when her husband would return home. When ...
Dhusei @ Dhusasan Behera Vs. Babaji Sethi (Dead) After Him Kailash Set ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT227; 1985(II)OLR232
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application challenging the order of the appellate Court confirming the order of the trial Court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree.2. During pendency of this Civil Revision, the opposite party Babaji Sethi expired. An application for substitution was made and was allowed. Opposite party No. 1 (c) Jamuna Sethi, daughter of the deceased Babaji was a minor. Since the natural guardian of Jamuna did not appear in this Court to represent her cause he was discharged and the petitioner was called upon to deposit the guardian cost for appointment of a Court guardian. By order dated 23-12-1933, opportunity was given to the petitioner to deposit the guardian cost by 15ch January, 1984, with direction to face the consequence of dismissal of the Civil Revision as against the minor on failure to deposit the costs within time granted. The guardian cost not having been deposited within the time granted and no steps having been taken for extension of time, the Civ...
State of Orissa Vs. Abhiram Sethi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT212; 1985(II)OLR208
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Inadequacy of sentence for the offences under Secs. 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code has given rise to this appeal presented by the Public Prosecutor. It is not controverted either in the trial Court or in this Court that the accused-respondent dashed the motor-cycle which he was driving with P. W. 3 from behind causing bleeding injuries on him. The plea in defence was that the accused-respondent was not an experienced driver as he was newly driving motor-cycle at the time of accident.2. The learned trying Magistrate found that the accused-respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently on the public way. He also found that on account of the rash and negligent driving, P. W. 3 sustained grievous hurt as a result of the accident. Finding the accused guilty under Secs. 279 and 338, I. P. C, the learned Magistrate convicted him and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200|- on each count which is the subject-matter of this appeal.3. The injury report has not b...
State of Orissa Vs. Sashi Bhusan Kar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT150; 1985CriLJ1725
ORDER1. The State has made an application under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for grant o f a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by this Court dt. April 26, 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982 allowing the appeal preferred by the opposite party herein against the judgment and order of conviction recorded against him under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161 of the Penal Code.2. This application came up for orders before one of us (B. K. Behera, J) who was of the view that such matters decided by learned single Judges should come up for orders before the same learned single Judges and matters decided by Division Benches should come up for orders before the Hon'ble Judges constituting those Benches, but as in some earlier cases, matters decided by the learned single Judges had been placed before the Division Benches for grant of certificates for leave to a...
Mamta Drinks and Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector, C.E.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT205; 1995(76)ELT38(Ori)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner company, M/s. Mamta Drinks and Industries Limited, carries on business at Rourkela and has installed a factory for manufacturing aerated water. The company also manufactures ice in the same factory premises. It is not disputed that aerated water is covered under Tariff Item No. ID of the Central Excise Tariff whereas ice falls under Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). It is also not disputed that both the items manufactured by the petitioner are classified under two different Tariffs of the First Schedule to the Act. The company submitted classification list No. 6/ID/78 with effect from 18-6-1977 for their excisable goods falling under T.I. ID on 10-2-1978. They incorporated ice against Item No. 5, i.e., under the heading 'particulars of other goods produced or manufactured and intended to be removed by the assessee'. As such, they did not treat ice as excisable. They also cleared th...
State of Orissa Vs. Bijay Kumar Agarwalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR590
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an application by the State of Orissa challenging the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, dated 3. 2. 1983 and 3. 5. 1983. By order dated 3. 2. 19 3, the learned Magistrate directed the Food Inspector who had tiled prosecution report in a Food Adulteration case to move the authorities to keep his order of transfer in abeyance until completion of the work of segregation. It appears that the said Food Inspector had been transferred from Cuttack Municipality to Sambalpur Municipality. The effect of the order of the learned Magistrate was that the order of transfer could not be given effect to. The learned Public Prosecutor thereafter filed an application before the learned Magistrate to rescind his earlier order, indicating therein that the transfer order of an employee of the Municipality cannot be interfered with by a Magistrate in decision of a criminal case and that would amount to an interference in the administrative affairs of the M...
Ramanath Mishra Vs. Ganeswar Mishra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori26
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. One of the defendants in original suit No. 168 of 1976-1 of the Court of the Munsif, Puri has filed this application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. being aggrieved by the order dated 8-12-1981 rejecting his application to restore Misc. Case No. 10 of 1981, under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C.The gist of the relevant facts leading to this proceeding may be stated thus: The opposite party No. 1 filed the above mentioned suit against the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of Ac.0.06 decimals of land in plot No. 3521 under Khata No. 941 of village Sripurusottampur in the district of Puri. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 based his title to the disputed land on the registered sale deed dated 8-4-1972 said to have been executed by opposite party No. 3, Brahmananda Misra, son of Kasinath Misra for a consideration of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner-defendant No. 1, while denying the allegatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »