Orissa Court January 1986 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.
Gafur Khan Vs. Bidyachar Moharana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori253; 61(1986)CLT160; 1986(I)OLR192
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this Civil Revision, the plaintiff challenges the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court calling upon him to pay court-fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act.2. Plaintiff claiming to be the legal representative of the mortgagor filed the suit for redemption; for directing the defendants to hand over the possession of the properties alleging them to be the successors of the mortgagee; and in case of their failure to deliver possession, to get recovery of possession from the defendants.3. It is not disputed by Mr. Rahim, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the suit of the plaintiff being based on a possessory mortgage, Section 17 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act') is applicable to this case'. Section 17 of the Act, as substituted in the year 1975, reads as follows :'17. Discharge of possessory mortgages : --(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or anything having the force of law or in any ...
E.K. Rajakrishnan, Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpor ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR243
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1.This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) which restricts interference only on a substantial question of law.2. Respondent being an employee is entitled to the benefits under the Act. On 1. 3. 1966 at about 2.30 p. m., his left thumb was pressed by the agitator drive causing injury. He was treated in the E. S. I. Hospital where he complained about his left ear being affected. The Medical Board gave a report on 6.10.1969 that the left thumb has not been affected. However, there was no mention about the injury to the left ear resulting in defect in hearing.3. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal by its order dated 30.9.1974 held that partial deafness developed on account of the accident and accordingly allowed disablement benefit. Appeal was preferred by the appellant before the E. S. I. Court which by its order dated 14. 8.1978 remitted bac...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brahmananda Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC557
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act').2. Claimant is a daily labourer. On 23-6-1979 at about 4,30 p.m. while he was returning back from his work with other workers on the Singhipur Road, the truck bearing registration No. OSC 197 loaded with stone boulders came from their front at a high speed. It dashed against the respondent No. 1 causing fracture of his right leg and overturned causing injuries to the other field workers with the respondent No. 1. Four separate claim applications were filed which were taken up together for enquiry. One set of evidence was recorded and one common order was passed.3. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. M.M. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, that the appeal is not entertainable since in respect of two of the claimants the finding that the appellant is the insurer has become final.4. Mr. P. Roy, the learned Counsel for the appellant sub...
Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs. State of ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC129(Orissa)
J.K. Mohanty, J.1. In all these writ petitions, identical questions of law has been raised. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the constitutionality and validity of the amended Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short the 'O.S.T. Act') as substituted retrospectively by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977, subsequently enacted as the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1978 and the assessments made applying the said provisions. At this point, it is useful to quote the relevant portion of Section 5(2)(A) as it stood before the amendment and as it stands now after the amendment. Prior to amendment After amendmentIn this Act, the expression In this Act, the expression'taxableturnover' means 'taxableturnover' means thatthat part of a dealer'sgross part of adealer's gross turn-turnover during any period over during any period whichwhich remains after deducting rem...
Rushi and anr. Vs. Madan Behera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori207; 1986(I)OLR198
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u), C.P.C., arises out of an order of remand of the suit by the appellate court to the trial court.2. The suit relates to a piece of land locally named 'Burakuti Bandha'. The defendant having claimed the land to be his, the suit has been ffiled by the villagers purporting to be one under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., for permanently restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land. The case of the defendant is that he has acquired title by adverse possession over the suit land of which he is in possession and enjoyment.3. Nine issues were framed of which issues 7 and 8 are :'7. Has the defendant perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession?8. Is the suit land communal in nature?' 4. The trial court held in answering issue 7 that the defendant is in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years. In answer to issue 8 the trial court held that the suit land is used for communal purpose of using...
Dinabandhu Munda Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT133; 1986(I)OLR246
B.K. Behera, J.1. Charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife in the evening of February 19, 1984, at Chordhara in the district of Sundargarh, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The order of conviction has been based on extrajudicial confessions said to have been made by the appellant before P. Ws. 2 and 3, the recovery of a piece of firewood (M. O. I) in the course of investigation on production by the appellant's father, who died before he could be examined at the trial and the fact that the deceased and the appellant had been residing together in their house.2. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that the order of conviction based on unreliable and inadmissible evidence must be set aside for the reasons to follow.3. It is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicida...
Ghasi Sahu and anr. Vs. Himachal Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori170; 1986(I)OLR256
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur whereby he confirmed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Deogarh rejecting appellants' petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short).2. The uncontroverted facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. Respondent 1 is the adopted son of respondent 2 and her late husband, Appellant 1 is the minor son and appellant 2 is the wife of respondent 1. They are members of a Hindu Mitakshara joint family living in joint mess and property. In Title Suit No. 9/1 of 1968/80 for partition between respondents 1 and 2 a final decree was passed. In the final decree, schedule 'A' land was allotted to the share of respondent 1 which was made charge for recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 22,930.00 decreed in favour of respondent 2. Respondent 2 brought Execution Case No. 5'of 1982 against respondent 1 i...
Rebati Gantayat Vs. Haguru Sethi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC497; 61(1986)CLT137
P.C. Misra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against an order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Balasore under Section 3 of the Act refusing to grant compensation to the present appellant.2. The appellant filed an application before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Balasore alleging that her husband late Gangadhar Gantaya was a Workman under the respondent Haguru Sethi who had a business establishment dealing with tamarind and rice etc Her case is that her husband was earning a monthly-wage of Rs. 120/- and during the course of employment he died of an accident. He was employed by his employer for plucking tamarind and while doing so, a branch of the tamarind tree broke down as a consequence of which he had a severe fall sustaining various injuries. He was then taken to the Hospital where he died. The case of the respondent is that Gangadhar Gantayat was a casual labourer and on the date of acc...
Chief Engineer Electricity-cum-electrical Project and anr. Vs. Bhanuma ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: I(1986)ACC457; 61(1986)CLT230
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 tin short 'the Act'). The registered owner of the motor vehicle ORK 2494, a jeep and its driver are the appellants. Claimants have also preferred cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded.2. Laxmidhar Misra, a Sub-Assistant Engineer of the State Government breathed his last on 4-9-1975 on account of the accident of the motor vehicle ORK 2494 belonging to the State Government while travelling from Talcher to Bhubaneswar on duty. His date of birth being 20-9-1942, he would have reached the age of superannuation on 20.9.2000 and would have been thus relieved on retirement on 30.9.2000. His widow, aged 31 years and three minor daughters aged about 12, 11 and 1 year and minor son aged 5 years claimed two lakhs rupees under Section 110-A of the Act which has been slashed down to Rs. 67,196/- by the Tribunal.3. There is no dispute that while the vehicle was moving, the front wheels bub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›