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.
State of Orissa Vs. Adikanda Swain
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR464
B.K. Behera, J. 1. Both the appeals arising out of the same judgment and order passed by Mr.K.C. Kar, Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. The accused-appellant in the Criminal Appeal who is the respondent in the Government Appeal (to be described hereinafter as the 'appellant') stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') with having committed the murder of Sananda Samal (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'deceased') on the 10th February, 1976, at village Gopalpur in the district of Cuttack by hitting his head by means of a lathi ( M.O.I.). To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses. The appellant's plea was one of denial and false implication. He had examined one witness in his defence. Of P. Ws. 2 and 3 examined as witnesses to the occurrence, P. W. 3 did not support the case of the prosecution for which he was put leading questions under Section ...
G. Krishna Rao Vs. Chalasani Pooranchandra Rao and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC386; AIR1987Ori18; [1989]65CompCas515(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') by the claimant. 2. On 24-7-1978, the truck of the claimant bearing registration No. AAP 8739 while standing another truck bearing registration No. AAP 5758 came from the opposite direction and dashed against it causing damages. The claimant filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming damages of Rs. 27,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the truck (AAP 5758) which caused the accident. 3. Now it is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1 relied upon by the Tribunal that the truck bearing No. AAP 8739 was standing when the other truck came and dashed against it straight. No material is furnished by the owner of the truck giving the circumstances under which his truck caused the accident. It can safely be concluded that the driver of the moving truck was negligent resulting in the damages to the truck. 4. The tribunal has rejected the claim on two grounds. One ...
Gouri Bewa Vs. Ari Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori212; 62(1986)CLT105
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Defendant No. 3 in a suit for partition is the petitioner in this Civil Revision assailing the order of the trial court refusing to correct the decree, as prayed for by her.2. In the plaint, the following genealogy was indicated : Madhu Biswal | __________________|___________________ | | Babana Dase | | Aujuna ___________________|_______________ | | | | | Chaitan Dama Sripati | | =Tanu ___________|____________ Bhima | | | =Gouri (D. 3) | Satrughna Alekha | (D. 1) __________________| | | Chhaya Golakha (Plaintiff) (D. 2)3. After consideration of the evidence led by the parties, ihe trial court found defendant No. ! not to be the son of Arjun, but to be the son of Sripati and one of the brothers of Chhaya. On a confused finding, the trial eourt in the absence of any dispute about the ancestral character of the disputed properties, considered the question of share of each of the parties. It held that the line of Baban iscompletelyextinctand accordingly, the enti...
Goura Chandra Sahu Vs. Gopinath Patro (Dead) After Him Smt. Padmabati ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR521
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision.2. After the preliminary decree in a suit for accounts, plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court for a special direction as envisaged under Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., to direct the Commissioner for taking all the accounts in the mode as indicated in the application which is not necessary to be elaborated in this order. Amongst other reasons, the trial Court rejected the application, stating : 'Order 20, Rule 17, C. P. C., has specifically stated that the Court may give a special direction regarding to the mode in which the account to be taken, while one special direction has already been given by the learned Sub-judge, the contention of the learned lawyer for the plaintiff to issue further special direction in contrary to the direction already given by the learned Sub-Judge may not be accepted.'3. Order 20 Rule 17, C. P. C., reads as follows : 'The Court may either by the decree directing an account...
Domu Chopadi and Madan Majhi Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR668
B.K. Behera, J.1. The two appellants stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having intentionally committed the murder of Dhobulu Khora (hereinafter described as the 'deceased'), their co-villager, with whom they had strained relationship, at about supper time on March 22,1981, at village Machhara in the district of Koraput. The case of the prosecution was that while the deceased had come out of his house, the appellant Domu Chopadi having a piece of stone (M. O. II) and the other appellant Madan Majhi being armed with an axe (M. O. I) suddenly attacked the deceased and While Domu Chopadi threw the piece of stone at the deceased and hit him, the other appellant jumped over the fence and dealt two strokes on the left side of the neck of the deceased by means of M. O. I which resulted in his death. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the evidence of four witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. Ws. 2 and 4 to 6. Of them, P. W. 6 is...
Domu Chopadi and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1481
B.K. Behera, J.1. The two appellants stood charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having intentionally committed the murder of Dhobulu Khora (hereinafter described as the 'deceased'), their co-villager, with whom they had strained relationship, at about supper-time on March 22,1981, at village Machhara in the district of Koraput. The case of the prosecution was that while the deceased had come out of his house, the appellant Domu Chopadi having a piece of stone (M.O. II) and the other appellant Madan Majhi being armed with an axe (.M.O. I) suddenly attacked the deceased and while Domu Chopadi threw the piece of stone at the deceased and hit him, the other appellant jumped over the fence and dealt two strokes on the left side of the neck of the deceased by means of M.O. I which resulted in his death. The order of conviction has been based mainly on the evidence of four witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 4 to 6. Of them, P.W. 6 is the widow ...
The State of Orissa Vs. Jeeban Lal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR421
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Jeypore, in a case under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('Act' for short) is under challenge. 2. The respondent had a sweet shop within the municipal area of Jeypore On 16.12.1976 he had exposed for sale an item of sweet named Boondi. P. W 3. the Food Inspector-cum-Health Officer of jeypore Municipality visited the shop at about 10 a.m. along with P. W. 1, a Sanitary Inspector of Jeypore Municipality. He suspected that Boondi was adulterated. Therefore, he served a notice under Section 11 of the Act on the respondent and purchased 1500 grams of Boondi from him on payment of Rs 12/- for the purpose of sending the same to the public Analyst. He divided the samples into three equal parts and kept the same in three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were properly packed, wrapped and sealed. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst on 16.12.1976 and ...
Subash Chandra Patnaik Vs. the Executive Officer, Notified Area Counci ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT626; 1986(I)OLR460
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Surada, convicting him under Section 383 of the Orissa Municipal Act ('Act' for short) and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 40/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days.2. The facts which are simple are recounted below. The petitioner owns and operates a rice and flour mill within the area of Surada Notified Area Council (hereinafter referred to as the N. A. C). He paid the annual licence fee levied by n. A. C. till the year 1979-80 at the rate of Rs. 50/-. In the year 1980-81 the N.A.C. authorities levied licence fee of Rs. 350/-, which the petitioner did not deposit, but nevertheless without obtaining a valid licence operated the mill. Therefore, the opposite party filed a prosecution report against him for having committed an offence under Section 383 for contravention of Section 290(1)(v) of the Act. 3. The petitioner took the defence that the annual licence fee...
Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. Konark Jute Limited and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori238
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchasing agent') has assailed the order of injunction passed under item (4) of Second Sch. read with Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and read with Order 39, Rule 1. C.P.C at the instance of M/s. Konark Jute Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal'). The appeal and the revision having been filed against the same order, are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The principal and the purchasing agent are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They entered into a written agreement on 7-11-1984 whereunder the purchasing agent agreed to purchase jute on behalf of the principal and make the supply to the principal as per the terms indicated therein. In the said agreement there is an arbitration clause for resolving the disputes between the parties by the named Arbitrator, the Jute Commissioner.3. As per th...
Krushna Chandra Nayak and ors. Vs. Nisamani Bewa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori105; 61(1986)CLT564
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The original respondent having died, the appellants applied for substitution of Smt. Prehialata Mohanty and Smt. Snehalata Mohanty as her legal representatives. Admittedly, they are the daughters of the deceased son of the sister of late Bhikari Charan Mohanty, the husband of the respondent. In other words, they are the heirs of the husband of the deceased-respondent. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 294 of 1984. The application was objected to by one Brundaban Mohanty, who is brother's son of the deceased-respondent. By order dt. 22nd April, 1985, the application for substitution was allowed subject to the objection of Brundaban to be delved into at the Final hearing of the Second Appeal.2. During hearing of the Second Appeal an application for compromise under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. was filed by the appellants and the substituted legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Since recording of the compromise would depend upon the validi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »