Orissa Court August 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.
Bhula Gouda Vs. Sunder Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori87; 60(1985)CLT344
J.K. Mohanty, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 Bhula Gouda, who has lost in both the Courts below has filed this appeal.2. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in this appeal) and Mitu Majhi, defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) are brothers. Plaintiff alleged that Mitu Majhi was a drunkard and without any legal necessity he executed a sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Bhula Gouda and Jirman Gouda in the year 1962 in respect of the suit land which is a joint family property without any consideration. The suit was filed for a declaration that the transfer of the land by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void. He further prayed for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for delivery of possession of the same to him. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. Their case is that the transfer is valid, the sale is for consideration and the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 Mitu Majhi were separate in me...
The Management of Bhubaneswar Municipality Vs. Mojes Gaon and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR188]; (1986)IILLJ349Ori; 1985(II)OLR343
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioner, Bhubaneswar Municipality, has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ /writs, order/orders quashing the award of the learned presiding Officer, Labour Court (O. P. No. 2) dated 30.12. 1378, as per Anriexure-3, directing the reinstatement of opposite party No. 1, an L. D. Clerk, with full back benefits after declaring his termination of service with effect from 25. 9. 1975 as illegal and unjustified.2. A reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 12(5) read with Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for adjudication of the dispute between the management of Bhubaneswar Notified Area Council (now substituted by Bhubaneswar Municipality) and opposite party No. 1 to the following effect.'Whether the termination of service of Sri Mojes Gaon by the management of the N. A. C., Bhubaneswar with effect from 25. 9. 1975 is legal and/or justified If not, ...
Mamta Drinks and Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Exci ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT224(Ori)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, M/s. Mamta Drinks and Industries Ltd., Rourkela (hereinafter called the 'Company') is carrying on business of manufacturing and selling Aerated Water/Soft drinks including Goldspot, Limca etc. which do not contain caffeine. The soft drinks manufactured by the Company are products liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item ID of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The rate of excise duty payable on soft drinks and aerated water is 60 per cent ad valorem. The Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Banking in exercise of their powers under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') exempted aerated waters falling under sub-item (2) of Tariff Item No. ID of the First Schedule (not containing caffeine) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as in excess of thirty per cent ad valorem vide Annexure-1, the Notification No. 28/79-C.E., d...
Bijoyshree Rout Roy Vs. Madhusudan Panigrahi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori105
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The Respondent No. 1 (the returned candidate) while filing the list of witnesses to be summoned to be examined by him has filed this application to permit him to file the list of witnesses and the list of documents to be called for so far as they relate to the issues on his application for recrimination, if and when the same is taken up for hearing.2. Mr. B. Misra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the summoning those witnesses to be present for examination would be prejudicial to respondent No. 1 inasmuch as there may not be any occasion for the same if it is found that the election of respondent No. 1 is not void. Relying upon the majority view expressed in the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1200 (Jabar Singh v. Ganda Lal) Mr. Misra emphasised that the law envisages the trial of issues in respect of the grounds of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 first and after the Court declares that the election of the ...
Daitari Pradhan Alias Ashok Das Alias Muna Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT295; 1985(II)OLR334
B.K. Behera, J.1. The revisionist who has been convicted of an offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years has made this application for his release on bail. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel. No doubt, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo a long term of imprisonment. But for the reasons to follow, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. 3. The co-convicts who have made applications in revision have been admitted to bail by this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 280 and 342 of 1985. A number of convicted prisoners are in custody in a number of Criminal Appeals, Jail Criminal Appeals, Criminal Revisions and Jail Criminal Revisions pending in this Court. It is not possible in every case to make an order for expeditious hearing by fixing a particular date. This revision is not likely to be h...
Butu @ Madhua Oram Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR398
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal from jail. The High Court Legal Aid and Advice Committee has engaged Mr. K.C. Mohanti, Advocate, for representing the appellant. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I. P. C. ) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 324,I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been awarded on that Count.2. Appellant is a resident of Kolhapada of village Mirgamunda. On 25.6. 1980, at about 1 p. m. he was seen naked with a Tangia in hand entering into the house of P. W. 12 in the same pada. He assaulted the deceased Koyili Dei wife of P. W. 12 on her head by the sharp side of the Tangia causing fatal injuries. On protest by P. W. 12, the appellant also assaulted him on his face below the nose. Coming out of the house, when the appellant was proceeding towards the tank of the village, be saw one Abhimanyu going on a cycle. Stating Abhimanyu to kill him, the appellant chased ...
Malu Naik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR412
D. Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal is from jail where the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C., for causing patricide and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. As the appellant was not represented by any counsel, we engaged Miss. Rakhi Saha, Advocate, to represent the appellant at the State expense.3. A thumb-nail narration leading to the present appeal is that on the 30th April, 1980 at about 11. 30 a. m the appellant caused the death of his father by inflicting injuries with a Mugura (M. O. I ).P. W. 2 the daughter-in-law of the deceased (wife of the eldest brother of the appellant) upon hearing some beating sound in the adjoining room where her father-in-law was living peeped inside it and saw the appellant dealing blows by M. O. I. on the deceased. P. W. 2 out of fear did not intervene and started running. She also raised an alarm to save her father-in-law from the appellant. Immediately she sent her son to inform the Sarpanch (P. W. 3), who came to the place of occurr...
BipIn Bihari Sahu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1985
Reported in: 60(1985)CLT375; 1986CriLJ406
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri affirming the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Penal Code ('I..P.C for short).2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18-10-1977 the petitioner committed theft of a bicycle belonging to P.W. 1 which was kept in front of his house. On the same day when the petitioner offered the stolen bicycle for sale to P.W, 8, the latter entertained suspicion, detained the petitioner and informed P.W. 9, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Chandanpur Out Post. P.W. 9 came, seized the bicycle by seizure-list (Ext. 4) and arrested the petitioner, against whom after close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for an offence under Section 379 I..P.C.3. The plea of the petitioner was denial of theft of the bicycle. The learned trial Court relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 8 and 9, accepted the prosecution evidence and...
K.C. Agarwala Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ori104
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this revision, petitioner challenges the order dated 11-5-1982 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar returning the award to the Arbitration Tribunal for filing the same in proper Court. The impugned order reads as follows :--Heard the G.P. Since no part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the award cannot be entertained by this court. Hence, return the award to the Arbitration Tribunal for filing the same in proper Court.'.2. The Arbitration Tribunal after making the award filed it in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar which was received in the court on 27-4-1982. It was registered as Original Suit No. 141 of 1982 (1). This was returned back by the impugned order to the Arbitration Tribunal for filing the same in proper Court. Before returning the award the petitioner was not given any chance of hearing.3. The impugned order is not a speaking order. From the cause title it is seen that the Sta...
Antaryami @ Antarjyami Patra and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(II)OLR445
B.K. Behera, J.1. These appeals arising out of the same judgment and order have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. The appellants along with the co-accused Arun Chandra Bhoi, a Jail Warder, stood trial in Sessions Trial Nos. 100 of 1980 and 16 of 1981 arising out of the same case and clubbed together. The appellant Sk. Raheman has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1981 and also Jail Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1981 against the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him. The appellants Makar Jena,Sk. Abdul Razak, Sk. Raheman and Niranjan Rai Das along with the co-accused Niranjan Dehury stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having committed the murder of the Jail Warder Mayadhar Sahu and they also stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code with two other persons, namely, Gopal Ray and Samar Ray, who were said to be absconding for having committed the murder o...