Orissa Court February 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.
Tulasiram Banchhor Vs. K. Satyanarayan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT296; 1986(I)OLR289
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. The decree-holder is the petitioner impugning the order of the Subordinate judge dated 19. 10. 1982. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the application filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has held that the decree in question has become inexecutable in view of Section 10-B of the Orissa (Scheduled Areas) Money-Lenders' Regulation, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation') as introduced by Orissa Regulation 2 of 1976.2. The plaintiff filed a suit on the allegation that the defendant had taken some loan from him on executing a mortgage deed and by delivering the mortgaged property in his favour. But after the plaintiff remained in possession of the land for one year, the defendant forcibly rook over possession of the land and also did not pay the amount which he had taken on loan and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount in question. This suit was decreed ...
Binaya Kumar Rout Vs. Ulli Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR296
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. First party member in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is the petitioner. On the basis of a report submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Jagatisinghpur Police Station, the learned Magistrate on being satisfied that a dispute exists in relation to possession of a piece of land and there is apprehension of breach of peace, passed a preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code by order dated 20.11.1984 and on the same date attached the land under Section 146 and appointed the Revenue Inspector, Redhua, as receiver. On receiving the notice from the learned Magistrate the second party members appeared in the proceeding and filed an application to drop the same inter alias on the ground that civil suit between the parties in respect of the self-same land is pending and the Civil Court would be fully competent to protect the property as well as to prevent breach of peace. The learne...
Sri Jagannath Roller Flour Mill and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC384(Orissa)
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core question for consideration in all these writ applications is whether, in the facts and circstastances of these cases, the petitioners are entitled to the concession enumerated in the industrial policy Resolution dated 18th July, 1979 operative during the period 1979 to 1983, despite its revision on 31-7-1980.2. The petitioners are entrepreneurs who have set up rolling mills at different places in the State. They have filed these writ applications being aggrieved by the acts/ omissions of the opposite parties in not granting them the concession relating to the octroi and sales tax for a period of five years commencing from the dates their unit went into commercial production. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is no controversy regarding the material facts in these cases. The grievance of all the petitioners is of similar nature and they raise similar questions of law. In these circumstances, with the consent of the parties, the writ ...
Dinan @ Dinamahamaud Khan and ors. Vs. Sk. KalimuddIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR295
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendants 2 to 6 are the petitioners. During the final decree proceeding opposite party No. 1 produced a deed of gift and claimed higher share in the partition which had been preliminarily decreed. The trial Court accepted the deed of gift and accordingly settled the shares of the parties. As yet, the properties in dispute have not been partitioned by metes and bounds and the final decree proceeding is pending.2. Mr. Kar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acceptance of the deed of gift by the trial Court on a finding that the petitioners have not disputed the correctness of the deed of gift is not correct. In case, the plaintiff would have made endeavour to prove the deed of gift, the same would have been contested. A document when produced in Court is to be marked as exhibit in a suit, be it at the trial for the preliminary decree or even in a proceeding for final decree. There is no record to show that the document has been proved and mar...
Smt. Maheswari Bewa and ors. Vs. Surendra Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT343; 1986(I)OLR301
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Defendant No 1 and her children (defendants 1-Ka, 1-Kha and 1-ga) are the petitioners challenging the order dated 21.10.1982 rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 4 of the Partition Act. The suit for partition was decreed on. 1 9 1976 and thereafter in course of the final decree proceeding, the Commissioner submitted a report which was accepted by the Court on 19.4.1982. The application by the petitioners under Section 4 of the Partition Act was filed on 30 8.1982. The only ground on which the said application has been rejected is that the final decree proceeding is virtually closed and, therefore, an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act cannot be entertained.2. Mr. Misra appearing for the petitioners contends that the final decree must be held to be continuing even though no objection to the Commissioner's, report had been filed and the said report had been accepted, inasmuch as the decree has not been finally signed and seale...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramanath Mohanty and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori163; [1990]67CompCas80(Orissa); 1986(I)OLR313
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. These eight miscellaneous appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in eight claim petitions tried analogously. Common questions of fact and law arise in all these miscellaneous appeals and so they were heard analogously. This common judgment will govern all of them. 2. The case of the claimants relevant for disposal of the miscellaneous appeals are stated in a nutshell. The claimants and some others belonging to two families were returning to their village, Malihata, in a bullock cart after witnessing the sivaratri mela at village, Deosul, in the evening of February 21, 1974, on Amarda-Baripada Road. At about 7.30 p. m. near village, Sasa, they noticed the headlights of a motor vehicle coming from behind. The occupants of the bullock cart asked the cartman to get down and stop it so as to control the bullocks till the passing of the motor vehicle. The cartman did so. The motor vehicle came with a great speed without blowing the ...
Bijaya Kumar Patnaik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR285
B.K. Behera, J. 1. The convict Bijaya Kumar Patnaik has made an application in this Court for an order under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the sentences of imprisonment passed against him in C. R. Case Nos. 12 and 13 of 1983 by Mr. S. K. Panda, judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur, and maintained by Mr. S. K. Patel, Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, in Jail Criminal Appeal No. ,1 of 1985 ( 147 of 1984-GDC ) and Jail Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1985 (148 of 1984-GDC) would run concurrently. In each of the two cases, he has been convicted under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code ('the Code', for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of both the offences which were to run concurrently and in addition, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-for each of the two offences and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The convict seeks an order that the...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramanath Mohanti and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC295
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These eight Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in eight claim petitions tried analogously. Common questions of fact and law arise in all these Miscellaneous appeals and so they were heard analogously. This common judgment will govern all of them.2. The case of the claimants relevant for disposal of the miscellaneous appeal are stated in a nutshell. The claimants and some others belonging to two families were returning to their village Malihata in a bullock cart after witnessing Sivaratri Mela at village Deosul in the evening of 21-2-74 on Amarda-Baripda road. At about 7.30 P.M. near village Sasa, they noticed the head lights of a motor vehicle coming from behind. The occupants of the bullock cart asked the cartman to get down and stop it so as to control the bullocks till the passing of the motor vehicle. The cartman did so. The motor vehicle came with a great speed without blowing horn and dashed against the b...
Ferroy Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Development Corporat ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori199; 61(1986)CLT270; 1986(I)OLR305
ORDERP.C. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision challenging the order dated 25-9-81 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar in O. S. No. 61 of 1978 refusing to call for the file containing the papers relating to the meeting held on 14-4-76 with the representatives of the plaintiff on the ground that the same is an unpublished official record relating to the affairs of the State, the disclosure of which will lead to public injury.2. The petitioner as plaintiff filed O. S. No. 61 of 1978 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar for a decree against defendant No. 1 and/or defendant No. 2 jointly and/or severally for Rs. 8,21,215.34 with pendente lite and future interest towards the balance amount payable by the defendants for the chrome ore supplied at the instruction of defendant No, 2 to defendant No. 1. In the said suit one of the issues which arises forconsideration is as to the rate at which the price of the ore is payable. According to...
Orissa Stavedores(P) Vs. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT318; 1986(I)OLR337
P.C. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar passed in Misc. Case No. 197 of 1984 in which injunction was prayed for against the present opposite parties to restrain them from taking any steps for entrusting the work of handling the vessel 'M. V. Alkar' to any other agency other than the petitioner at Kakinada Port and for a further direction to assign the work of handling the said vessel to the petitioner as the clearing and forwarding contractor.2. An objection was raised by the Stamp Reporter that the impugned order being one under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P C, the same is appealable and no revision would lie. By order dated 27-4-J985 this Court deferred the consideration about maintainability of the revision to be taken up at the time of final hearing of the Civil Revision. The opposite parties rightly did not press the point relating to the maintainability of this revision inasmuch as the impugned order is really one unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »