Orissa Court January 1986 Judgments
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sashimani Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: I(1986)ACC474; 1986(I)OLR345
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Insurer is the appellant under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') assailing the maintainability of the claim application in view of getting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. Mr. P. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant, has based his entire submission on the last sentence of the statement of P. W. 1 in cross-examination, which is to the following effect :'...I have already got a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- and odd under the Workmen's Compensation Act,'No objection to the maintainability of the claim petition was taken in the written statement of the insurer. No document has been fifed which would have been best evidence to justify the statement of P. W. T.3. Mrs. Padhi, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that this statement on the face of it is confused by an illiterate helpless lady. The schedule given in the Workmen's Compensation Act provides-for much more compensation than Rs. 7,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Hans and anr. Vs. Umakant Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC538
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the father and the son injured in the same accident under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'). The claims were disposed of in one judgment. Therefore, these two appeals are also heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The accident and the injuries sustained by the father and the son are not in dispute. Mr. M.M. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants, assailed the justices of quantum of the compensation determined as well as the apportionment of the liability and compensation awarded.3. On 28-10-1974 as about 1 p.m., the father and the son were going to their residence from the shop in a new unregistered motor-cycle driven by the son. After a short distance of about 11/2 K. Ms from their shop at the station area of New Capital they met with the accident. A truck was coming from Vani Vahar towards the station crossing. Behind it a fiat car was proceeding making ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhadi Barik and ors. Vs. Arjun Barik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori203; 61(1986)CLT487; 1986(I)OLR395
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge Kendrapara directing the parties in the final decree proceeding of Title Suit No. 25 of 1969 for partition to adduce evidence in order to substantiate objection to the report, map and allotment sheets prepared by the Civil Court Commissioner. The plaintiffs are the petitioners.2. In the suit for partition a preliminary decree was passed defining the share of the plaintiffs and allotting the land covered under Ext. A in favour of defendant No. 3 and directing issuance of a commission to effect partition by metes and bounds giving due respect to the possession of the parties in respect of the suit land as far as practicable. The preliminary decree was upheld in Title Appeal No. 55 of 1971 and Second Appeal No. 59 of 1973. In the final decree proceedings, a commission was issued for effecting the partition in accordance with the directions contained in the preliminary decree. The Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmit Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR229
B.K. Behera, J.1. Accused of offences punishable under Sections 279, 537 and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, each of the two petitioners has been admitted to bail by Mr. S. Misra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Jeypore. The petitioners have been required to furnish bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with two local sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel, having admitted the application. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the bail amount with a direction to furnish two local sureties for the like amount has been excessive and is not sustainable and, therefore, modification has been sought.3. The amount of every bail bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. In AIR 1978 S.C, 1594 : Moti Ram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court h...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Karunakar Rout Vs. Managing Committee, Fakirpur High School and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT284; 1986(I)OLR327
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. A teacher of an aided educational institution is the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the reduction of his monthly salary and the direction for recovery of the amount alleged to have been drawn in excess, he has approached this Court for a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Undisputedly, the petitioner, who was qualified to hold the post, was appointed as the Physical Education Teacher of Fakirpur High School on 1.10.1971 in the scale of pay of Rs. 95-150/- as prescribed under Article 313 of the Orissa Education Code and his initial pay was fixed at Rs. 104/-. Taking into consideration his past experience, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school increased his pay to Rs. 108/-per month on 13.1.1972, which was also within the above scale of pay. This was ratified by the Managing Committee in its resolution dated 30.1.1972. The scale of pay of a teacher of Aided Educational Institution provided in Article 313 of the Orissa Education Code w...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kalia @ Baghrai Bindhani and Four ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT262; 1986(I)OLR232
B.K. Behera, J.1. Upon hearing the teamed Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Nayak for the respondents, I find no case for interference in this appeal against the order of acquittal of the five respondents who stood charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed dacoity in the house of Mangulu Charan Bindhani (P. W. 6) at village Jhinoi in the district of Mayurbhanj in the course of which the inmates of the house had been assaulted and the articles had been removed during the night of September 17, 1979, and I would give the reasons for this conclusion.2. The learned Standing Counsel has not pressed into service and rightly so, the evidence with regard to the recoveries of the utensils (M. Os. I to V) from an accessible and unfenced place in the back yard of the house of the respondent Baghrai Bindhani who could not be said to be in possession of these articles and the recovery of M O.-a Dhoti from the possession of the respondent Dhanga Majhi, who had cla...
Tag this Judgment!Lura Kumbhar and ors. Vs. Malik Ram Vig and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC478
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Widow and son of the victim in an accident are the appellants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' in short).2. On 21-5-1979. Mutu Kumbhar, aged about 44 years succumbed to the injuries sustained on account of sudden fall from the moving truck bearing registration No ORS 4325. He was engaged in the truck as a daily labourer. The appllants filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards the loss of dependency.3. The owner objected to the claim attributing negligence to the deceased and absolving the driver from negligent driving of the vehicle. The insurer while conceding to the vehicle being insured with it, denied its liability on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the truck.4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the nature of accident as described by another occupant of the truck and an eye witness to the occurrence, came to the conclusion that the accident was the o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Naik and Two ors. and Benudhar Das ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR240
B.K. Behera, J.1. The respondents in the two appeals, which have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment, stood their trial with two co-accused persons in the Court of Session. The respondents stood charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short, 'the Code') for having committed rape on Ahalya Dei (P. W. 1.) during the night of the 6th/7th September, 1978 at Sisua. The co-accused Jagannath Santra who stood charged under Section 354 of the Code and the co-accused Khirod Chandra Das who stood charged under Sections 201 and 354 of the Code were acquitted. On a consideration of the evidence of the victim (P. W. 1) and the other evidence on record, the trial Court held that the charge against the respondents had been established. They were accordingly convicted under Section 376 of the Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. After the success of the respondents in the Court of the learned appel...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Bhoi Vs. Meghu Bhoi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori226; 61(1986)CLT266; 1986(I)OLR278
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The second appeal involves an interesting question of law as to whether the general exceptions provided under the Penal Code would be applicable in a suit for damages on torts, indeed, at the time of admission of the appeal this question was formulated by the Court for examination.2. The facts leading to this appeal may be shortly stated thus; Appellant, Debendra Bhoi, filed the suit (M.S. No. 30 of 1973) before the Munsif, Bargarh claiming Rs. 500/- towards damages from the respondents Meghu Bhoi and Dhanei Bhoi on the allegations that on 26-7-73, the latter assaulted him causing injuries, as a result of which he was treated in -the Government Central Hospital, Bargarh, for 11 days and suffered physical and mental pain and financial loss; Respondent 2, Dhanei Bhoi, is the son of respondent 1, Meghu Bhoi, it was the further case of the appellant that land described in the Schedule 'A' to the plaint situated in Mouza Sarsara belonged to him. The respondents had land...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Jaggi Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR406
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application by the accused against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Cuttack, dated 14.11.1985 passed in 2 (a) CC No. 23 of 1932 deciding to frame charge against him under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In this Court the accused himself presented his case and I have heard him at lengh on 16.1.1985, 21.1.1986, 24.1.1986 and today, keeping in mind that having the normal emotions of an accused to get rid of the blame put on him, he is likely to fell aggrieved in case sufficient opportunity is not given to him to exhaust all his submissions. 3. Section 199, Indian Penal Code reads as follows : '199. Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »