Orissa Court November 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.
State of Orissa Vs. Smt. Archana Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori82; 63(1987)CLT658
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This appealarises out of a proceeding for compensationon account of an accident in which thehusband of respondent 1 was killed and isdirected against the order of a learned singleJudge of this Court (reported in 1978 Ace CJ61 : (AIR 1978 Orissa 138)).2. The significant question of generalimportance that falls for our consideration inthis case, is as to whether the widow of avictim will cease to be entitled to the compensation under the provisions of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1959 (for Short 'the Act') in the event of her remarriage.3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :In the afternoon of 12-6-1969, a Station Wagon bearing registration number ORC 3442 belonging to the State of Orissa in which the deceased Surendra Kumar Nayak, the husband of respondent 1, was travelling from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar with other passengers met with a head-on collision with a truck (number ORU 1053) on the National Highway resulting in the death of three passengers including Surendr...
Puni Bewa and anr. Vs. Harekrushna Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1344
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. There was a dispute in respect of the suit lands in a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Cuttack, bearing Misc. Case No. 314 of 1977. In the said proceeding opposite party No. 1 was appointed as receiver. A title suit for partition was also filed for the self-same property. In the title suit a prayer was made for appointment of a receiver. As opposite party No. 1 had been appointed as a receiver in the criminal proceeding, he was appointed as receiver in Civil Court also. There is no document to indicate that the appointment of Opposite Party No. 1 as receiver by the Civil Court was communicated to him or being a receiver any accounts or security was demanded from him.2. At the time of disposal of the suit on compromise, however, the trial Court directed the receiver to render the accounts. Basing upon this order, the petitioners filed a petition for directing the receiver to render the accounts. On b...
Madhumati Agrawala Vs. Utkal University and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori124; 63(1987)CLT440
Behera, J.1. Madhumati Agrawala or Shaheen Nilofer -- who of the two would be entitled to be the recipient of the General Research Scholarship for Sociology available in the Utkal University for this year? This is the question for consideration in the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India made by the petitioner Madhumati Agrawala in which the Utkal University figures as the opposite party No. 1 and Shaheen Nilofer, who has been adjudged to be the best among the candidates applying for the scholarship, as the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner claims that although a student of Political Science, having done research work in Sociology as would be evident from the certificates as per Annexures 4 and 5, she is entitled to be considered for this scholarship.2. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Patnaik has submitted forcefully that although the petitioner has not done her M.A. in Sociology, she is entitled to be considered for this scholarship, but has be...
income-tax Officer Vs. Manmohanlal and Others.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Ori)123; [1987]168ITR56(Orissa); [1987]30TAXMAN95(Orissa)
K. P. MOHAPATRA J. - In this revision, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack, rejecting a petition under section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act ('Act' for short).The petitioners case in a nutshell is that opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners of the firm, opposite party No. 3. For the years 1962-63 to 1966-67, they were liable to pay income-tax along with penalty and interest as follows :Rs.Opposite party No. 1 :1,98,388Opposite party No. 2 :1,75,463Opposite party No. 3 :3,14,393 6,88,244The tax not having been paid, the petitioner referred the matter to the Tax Recovery Officer, Cuttack, for realisation of the arrear dues. Opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the 'opposite parties') were entitled to receive compensation on account of land acquisition to the tune of Rs. 3,08,533.10. Therefore, the petitioner sent a letter dated November 1, 1985, under section 226(3) of the Act attaching a sum...
Pradip Kumar Sahoo Vs. Utkal University and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori98
Behera, J.1. The petitioner assails the order as per Annexure-7 issued by the Utkal University penalising the petitioner for having adopted unfair means at the Annual Degree Examination of 1982 by cancelling his examination and debarring him from appearing at any examination prior to the Annual Degree Examination of the year 1984. It has been stated in the writ application and submitted at the hearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared at the Final B. A, (Honours) Examination of the year 1982 conducted by the Utkal University (opposite party No. 1) which commenced on and from April 15.1982 at the B. J. B. College Centre at Bhubaneswar and had done well in all the papers. In the evening of April 26, 1982, four lecturers came to the quarters where the petitioner had been residing at Bhubaneswar and searched for the answer paper of the sixth paper of Economics Honours alleging that the petitioner had removed the said answer paper without submitting the same after the...
Madhab Chandra SwaIn Vs. Election Tribunal-cum-munsif and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT95; 1986(II)OLR666
B.K. Behera, J.1. The petitioner assails the order dated 15-4-1986 passed by the learned Munsif-cum -EIection Tribunal, Kendrapara, in Election Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1984 rejecting an application made by him for summoning P. W. 1, a junior Engineer, for further examination in order to substantiate his case that the opposite party No. 2, who was the sole contestant of the petitioner for the office of the Sarpanch of the Baro Grama Panchayat, had a subsisting contract with the State Government, by getting a document marked 'X' for identification while P. W. 4 was under examination admitted in evidence through P. W. 1 who was said to be competent to identify the writings and signatures of the opposite party No. 2. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the grounds that the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity to prove the document in accordance with law and allowing such an application would cause undue delay in the proceeding and harassment to the opposite party No...
Prataprudra Mishra Vs. Sachi Bala Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR659
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Who has the right to begin the suit in accordance with the provisions of Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code', for short) is the core question for consideration in this revision.2. It is necessary at the outset to state a few facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner is the owner of Schedule 'A' house of the plaint which fell to his share in a family partition. The other portion of the house described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint had fallen to the share of his late brother Gopal Chandra Mishra, husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendants 3 to 6. Late Copal Chandra Mishra sold Schedule 'B' house in favour of defendant No. 1 on 20-2-1969. During absence of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 raised some constructions on her portion of the house (Schedule 'D') obstructing free flow of light and air to the plaintiff's house. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 1971 against defendant No. 1 ...
Ramesh Samal and ors. Vs. Chabi Mandal and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT204; 1987CriLJ759
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1. Upon hearing Mr. S. K. Padhi for the petitioners, Mr. S. C. Mohapatra for the opposite party No. 1 and Mr, R. K. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Digapahandi, taking cognizance of alleged commission of offences by the petitioners punishable Under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149 and 302 read with Section 109 of the Penal , Code on the basis of a petition of complaint by the opposite party 1 which has been maintained by Mr. C. R. Pal, the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, must be set at naught, for the reasons to follow.2. On the basis of a first information report in respect of the same incident, investigation had been taken up by the police agency and . on its completion, a charge-sheet had been placed against the petitioners Ramesh Samal, Alekh Mandal, Raghunath Nahak and Bishnu Mandal and the other petitioners were not proceeded against. An application made Un...
Bhagirathi Das and anr. Vs. the State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR691
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentence Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('Act' for short).2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioners own a grocery shop in village Nuagada where they sell consumer goods. On 10-11-1978 afternoon the Food Inspector inspected the food articles exposed for sale in the shop and suspected pea Besan and ground-nut oil to have been adulterated. So, after observing all formalities according to the rules he purchased 750 grams of pea Besan and 375 grams of groundnut oil, divided them into samples, packed and sealed them and despatched a set of samples of both the articles to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst reported that both the articles were adulterated and so after obtaining sanction from the prescribed authority, prosecution was launched against the petitioners.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, R. Udayagiri, believed, the prosecution evidence,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›