Orissa Court March 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Aluminium Industries Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT539
B.K. Behera, J.1. The suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the Union of India, represented through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, who is the appellant herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,556.82 paise on account of short delivery by the Railway Administration has been decreed by Mr. D.C. Guru, Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, accepting the claim that the plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of a consignment of 1122 pieces of aluminium ingots booked under railway receipt No. 335024 dated June 15, 1972 from Renukoot to Sambalpur after being checked by the Railway Administration, suffered shortage of 252 pieces of aluminium ingots weighing 5412 KGs. when the consignment reached the Sambalpur Railway Station without the original seal and rivet for which the plaintiff had demanded open delivery and the Railway Administration had granted shortage certificate (Ext. 5), which, according to the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge, was owing to the negligence a...
Fakir Chand Seth Vs. Dambarudhar Bania
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori50
P.C. Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna in Money Suit No. 33/73 wherein he had prayed for recovery of Rs. 17,815/- including interest due on an agreement executed by the defendant on 19-1-1972.2. The plaintiffs case is that on 19-1-72 he advanced a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendant for supply of paddy in evidence whereof the defendant executed a document (Ext. 2) incorporating the terms agreed to between the parties. It was stipulated therein that the defendant is to supply 350 bags of paddy at the rate of Rs. 43/- per bag of fine paddy and at the rate of Rs. 45/- per bag of superfine paddy by 28-2-72 and after the said supply the defendant was to take return of the document executed by him. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant neither supplied the paddy nor refunded the advance money to the plaintiff in spite of several demands though the defendant had sent two letters to him requesting for time to settle up the ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Aluminium Industries Limited
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori149
Behera, J.1. The suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the Union of India, represented through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, who is the appellant herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,556.82 paise on account of short delivery by the Railway Administration has been decreed by Mr. D. C. Guru, Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, accepting the claim that the plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of a consignment of 1122 pieces of aluminium ingots booked under railway receipt No. 335024 dated June 15, 1972 from Renukoot to Sambalpur after being checked by the Railway Administration, suffered shortage of 252 pieces of aluminium ingots weighing 5412 Kgs. When the consignment reached the Sambalpur Railway Station without the original seal and rivet for which the plaintiff had demanded open delivery and the Railway Administration had granted shortage certificate (Ext. 5), which, according to the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge, was owing to the negligence and m...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Aluminium Industries Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori152
Behera, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Mr. D. C. Guru, Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, accepting the case of the plaintiff-respondent that there had been shortage of 521 pieces of aluminium ingots out of 1101 pieces booked under R.R. No. 335029 dated June 19, 1972, from Renukoot to Sambalpur, by the Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Limited for delivery to the respondent at Sambalpur without the original seal and rivet for which a shortage certificate had been issued by the Railway Administration to the respondent which fact was owing to the negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration for which the respondent sustained a loss of Rs. 64,723.32 paise and rejecting the case of the defendant-Railway, the appellant herein, that in the absence of proof that the articles had been delivered to the Railway Administration and that the employees of the Railway Administration had supervised the loading at the place of booking, the appellant could not be li...
Bhabani Sankar Patra Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori247; 1986(I)OLR510
P.C. Misra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money said to have been advanced by the State Bank of India (Respondent 1) under a cash credit agreement from the present appellant (Defendant 2) and the present respondent 2 (defendant 1).2. The plaintiff's case in short is that the first defendant was carrying on the business in ready-made clothes, hosiery goods etc. in Berhampur town and had approached the plaintiff-Bank for a loan accommodation under a cash credit account for the purposes of his business. The second defendant (the present appellant) offered to stand as a guarantor for repayment of the loan by defendant 1. On 20-4-1970 the plaintiff-Bank granted a loan accommodation to defendant 1 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under a cash credit account. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- was secured by the first defendant by executing a promissory note on 20-4-1970 in favour of the second defendant as the guarantor for the loan and the latter duly endorsed the said promissory not...
Malu Sandh and anr. Vs. Manbodh Bagarti
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT665; 1986(I)OLR628
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision is against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Bargarh, allowing the amendment of the plaint in T. S. No. 44/83 of his Court. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to state a few facts.The plaintiff (opposite party) prayed for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants (petitioners) in order to restrain them from disturbing his peaceful possession in respect of the suit land with an area of Ac. 2.10 decimals of cultivable land described in detail in schedule 'A' of the plaint. According to his averments, he had purchased the suit land from defendant No. 1 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24-5-1961 and since then he has been in Khas cultivable possession thereof. He has also been recorded as a Raiyat in the record of rights. In the year 1982-83, the defendants created disturbance in his possession, obstructed him from raising cropland thereby created a cloud over his title. The defenda...
Smt. Krishnapriya Mohapatra Vs. Birakishore Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori65; 61(1986)CLT554
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the opposite party and in this revision the order of the Subordinate Judge, D/- 19-6-85 is being challenged. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present dispute may be briefly stated as follows : -- An application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the husband-opposite party which has been numbered as O.S. No. 95/83 and is pending disposal before the Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act for pendente lite maintenance which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 8/85 and the said application was rejected by the Subordinate Judge by order D/- 14-3-84, The Subordinate Judge had observed that as the wife was serving and had independent source of income, the application could not be entertained, but by the said order gave liberty to the wife to make an application for interim mainten...
Phani Bhusan Kanungo Vs. Cuttack Development Authority and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR468
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act at the instance of thePlaintiff-contractor against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 423 of 1982 who by the impugned judgment rejected the plaintiff's prayer to make the award of the arbitrator a rule of the Court and allowed the objection filed by the defendants under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act and has set aside the award dated 27-7-1982.2. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Cuttack Development Authority, respondent No. 2 in the present appeal, for the work 'Development of plots in Group-II and Il-A of Sikharpur Housing Accommodation Scheme, Cuttack' and executed the said work. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of some claims made by the plaintiff and an arbitrator was appointed by the Subordinate judge in Miscellaneous Case No. 160 of 1980 to arbitrate upon the said disputes. In the proceedings before the arbitrator, the plaintif...
Anduri Podhan and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR474
B.K. Behera. J. 1. The two appellants herein figured as P. Ws. 5 and 8 in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1981-B in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur. It had been alleged that two of the accused persons had removed gold ornaments from the person of the deceased Kanta Phula and had handed over the Articles to P. Ws. 5 and 8. All the accused persons were acquitted.2. P. W. 3, the husband of the deceased, who was the first informant, had identified a gold necklace (M. O. II) and gold nose rings (MO III) as belonging to the deceased. He had identified these articles in the Court and at a prior test identification parade. In the course of investigation, M O. II had been recovered from the possession of P. W. 8 who had claimed it as belonging to her and M. O. Ill had been recovered from the person of P. W. 5 who had claimed this article to be hers. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge has passed an order for return of M. Os. II and III to the first-informant. T...
Champapriya Devi and ors. Vs. Damyanti Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT601; 1986(I)OLR621
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, rejecting the plaintiff's petition to recall P. W. 3 for the purpose of re-examination.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title in in respect of the schedule 'A' land of the plaint, recovery of possession thereof by evicting defendants 1 and 2 therefrom and for permanent injunction restraining them from coming over the suit land. The suit schedule 'A' land consists of lot Nos. 1 and 2. Lot No. 1 is a part of plot No. 3319 appertaining to Khata No. 645/1 of Cuttack town with an area of Ac. 0. 35 decimals. P. W. 3 is a survey knowing person who measured plot No. 3319 and prepared a map. He was examined by the plaintiff and was cross-examined by defendants 1 and 2. In his chief examination he stated as follows :'...Plot No. 3319 is divided into four parts. The plaintiff is in possession of plot No, 3319/1. Plot No. 3319/2 is possessed by the defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »