Orissa Court October 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.
Ladukishore Sethi Vs. D.P.i. Elementary and Adult Education and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT653; 1986(II)OLR676
B.K. Behera, J.1. While serving as the Headmaster of the Upper Primary School at Badaputi, the petitioner made a representation in June, 1985, for his transfer to any school within the area of Chatrapur Panchayat Samiti. He was transferred as per Annexure-1 to the Upper Primary School, Agraharam. This order of transfer was received by him on August 17th, 1985. The order of transfer of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 was immediately modified and he was re-transferred and posted at the Upper Primary School at Jorada. He assails the order of transfer as per Annexure-2 as illegal and as having actuated by mala fides at the behest of the local Member of the Legislative Assembly. In the counter affidavit, the District Inspector of Schools, Chatrapur (opposite party No. 2) has denied the allegations.2. Mr. Nanda has contended for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is mala fides, illegal and unjustified. Reliance has been placed by him on a decision of this Court reported in o...
Narahari Mallik Vs. Jadumani Mallik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori122; 63(1987)CLT31
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant 5 is the petitioner in this Civil revision which arises out of an order under Section 4(4), Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In the suit for partition by the plaintiff in respect of the family property, relief under Section 4, Parthian Act, was claimed against defendant 5 who is a stranger purchaser of homestead. On the allegation that during the pendency of the suit the disputed land came within the consolidation area in view of the notification under Section 3 of the Act, petitioner filed an application for ordering abatement of the suit.3. In the absence of any objection to the fact of the disputed land being in the consolidation area, the trial court ordered abatement of the suit in respect of the relief of partition, but directed the suit to continue in respect of the relief under S, 4, Partition Act.4. Assailing the order Mr. R.K. Mohanty, submitted that...
Smt. Subhadra Pradhan Vs. the A.D.M. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT197; 1986(II)OLR641
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner, an Adibasi woman, belonging to G. Udayagiri Subdivision in the district of Phulbani, one of the most undeveloped areas in the State has approached this Court with the application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the appellate authority under Annexure-5 to the writ application and also the order of the competent authority under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956)(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation') under Annexurp-2 to the writ application. Since the controversy in the present proceeding lies within a narrow compass, it is not necessary to deal with the respective cases of the parties in detail. It is sufficient for the present purpose to state that the proceeding under the Regulation was initiated on the application filed by the petitioner against opp. party No 2. The said pet...
Haribandhu Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR673
B.K. Behera, J.1. Upon hearing Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Das, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party and on a consideration of the materials placed by the petitioner, we are of the view, for the brief reasons to follow, that there is no prima facie case for admission of the writ application.2. A practising Advocate at Bhubaneswar, the petitioner has assailed the order of the Governor as per Annexure-2 refusing to accord sanction for the prosecution of Mr Janaki Ballav Patnaik, the Chief Minister of Orissa, which was sought Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for commission of offences alleged in a copy of the petition of complaint enclosed to the application which had been Submitted to the Governor. The Chief Minister has not been made a party to this writ application.'3. The impugned order reads :'With reference to your application dated August 13, 1986 on behalf of your client Shri Haribandhu Das, I am directed to ...
Somanath Jena Vs. Smt. Sabitri Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori251
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Husband in a suit for maintenance by the wife is the petitioner in the civil revision and the appellant in the Miscellaneous Appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'). As the parties are the same and both the matters arise out of the same suit, I heard them together and dispose of the same in this common judgment.2. During the pendency of the suit for maintenance, the wife (plaintiff) filed an application for interim maintenance as well as for litigation expenses purporting to be one under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Trial Court considered the application and granted Rs. 120/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 30/- per month towards litigation expenses. For recovery of the said amount an execution case was filed by the wife. To facilitate recovery of the amount in the execution proceeding, she filed an application in the suit to appoint a receiver in respect of salary of the defendant-petitioner. The same having been allowed the Misc. Appe...
Md. Umar Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT179; 1986(II)OLR632
L. Rath, J.The petitioner has moved this Court under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Bonaigarh, opp. party No. 3 to issue felling order in respect of the trees purchased by him and for issuing timber transit permit.After stating facts, counter and rejoinder, it is found :5. The narration of the facts as above discloses a deplorable state of things. The T. T. Permits are issued under the provisions of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (Orissa Act 14 of 1972). The rules are regulatory in nature and purport to regulate movement of timber in the State and provide that subject to some exceptions, all forest produce in transit by land/rail, or/ water shall be covered by a permit to be called the 'Transit Permit' which is to be issued free of cost by the Divisional Forest Officer or by the Assistant C...
Smt. Chandramani Devi and anr. Vs. Rama Chandra Parida and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori183
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this civil revision arising out of a confirming decision rejecting the application for restoration of the suit dismissed for default. 2. Plaintiff 2 is the husband of plaintiff 1. Case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff 2 was looking after the suit which was posted to 1-2-1982. A few days prior to the date fixed for hearing his left leg had to be plastered on account of fracture and the plaster was removed only on 30-1-1982. As he had severe pain after removal of the plaster, he could not attend the Court in time on 1-2-1982, though reached late at about 1 p.m. by which time the suit had already been dismissed. Case of the defendants challenging restoration is that plaintiff 2 was hale and hearty and with evil intention of prolongation of the litigation he did not take any step on the date fixed. 3. Petitioners examined P.W. 1, a doctor, and the plaintiff 2 as P. W. 2. Endorsement made in a prescription issued in name of Bhi...
Rajendra Sahoo Vs. Ganeswar Swain
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori156; 62(1986)CLT671
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the defendant challenging the decision of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit and permanently restraining him from selling or offering for sale or passing off the bidis manufactured by him in the name of Ganesh Bidi in the market and use the labels and wrappers and in Annexures V to VIII of the plaint or in any other name and under any other mark which are similar or deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff. The trial Court further directed the defendant and his agents, servants and all other persons on his behalf to hand over all labels and wrappers to the plaintiff for destruction.2. The respondent filed the suit, O.S. No. 12 of 1980 (Trade mark), in the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack praying [or a decree for permanent injunction in the terms indicated above and for mandatory injunction to hand over all labels and wrappers and alt manufacturing implements to the plaintiff for destruction and also for a prel...
Bijaya Kumar Singh Samanta Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR629
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The moot question that arises for consideration in this revision petition lies within a very narrow compass, that is, if the Court below was justified in making the award of the Arbitrators a rule of the Court before expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days for filing objections to the award.2. The petitioner, a contractor, was entrusted with the work of special report to Bagunia-lodachua Road at 21st K. Ms. to 22nd K. Ms. on behalf of the opposite party under agreement No. 97-F2 of 1981-82. After completion of the work he submitted a final bill claiming Rs. 5,994. 00 from the opposite party. The bill was disputed and the matter was referred to the Arbitration Tribunal in terns of the agreement. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 914/- only,3. As it appears from the lower Court records, the award was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Khurda, on 29-7-1983. The Court issued notice of filing of the award to the parti...
Kasinath Biswal and ors. Vs. Hina Bhoi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT749; 1986(II)OLR548
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This revision which has been referred to Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court raises an important question of law, namely, whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') can be exercised not withstanding the bar contained in Section 397(3) of the Code in a second revision where the aggrieved party has already approached the Sessions judge in revision, Even though the learned Single Judge who had referred the matter to the Division Bench was prima facie of the view that in appropriate cases, the powers Under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, yet in view of a Bench decision of this Court reported in 41 (1975) CLT, 656, he thought it appropriate that the matter should be referred to a Division Bench.2. The petitioners are the accused persons against whom the Sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »