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.
Government of India Vs. Raja Soubhagya Chandra Dev
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori71; 62(1986)CLT158
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 20 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act').2. On 4-7-1970, notification bearing No. S. O. 2401 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by the Central Government being notice of its intention to acquire 9.34 acres of land with 224 trees of the respondent in Khata No. 89 of Talcher town in several plots. Section 4(1) requires the notification in the official gazette. However, the record of the Tribunal does not disclose the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette. Some time after this notification, a declaration of acquisition was issued under Section 9 of the Act bearing No. S.O. 3347 dated 16-9-1972. Although Sub-section (2) of Section 9 requires the declaration to be published in the official gazette, the date of such publication is not found from the record of the Tribunal.3. On 14-2-1980, the Deputy Chief (Revenue), C.C.L., Ranchi, intimated the Tribunal const...
Tulsidas Modi and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR415
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this criminal revision the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda, refusing to drop charges under Sections 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act ('Act' for short).2. The prosecution case shortly stated is that petitioner No. 1, father of petitioner No. 2 (both accused) was the licensed wholesale dealer for kerosene authorised to carry on business at Malgodown, Cuttack. On 27.11.1978 he effected a fictitious transaction of sale of 8500 litres of kerosene to a non-existent, person named Bairagi Charan Sahu of village Kalapathar in Banki Sub division of Cuttack District describing him as a retail dealer of kerosene. As a matter of fact, he transported the stock of kerosene by a tanker lorry to Nirakarpuf in Khurda Sub division of Puri district and unauthorisedly sold the same to a retail dealer of kerosene of Puri district named, Siyaram Agarawala (accused). When accused Siyaram Agarawala was confr...
Bhalu Alias Chandrasekhar Das Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1467
1. Accused of commission of an offence of murder, the petitioner seeks his release on bail.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and having perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, we notice that it may not appropriately be said at this stage that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,that the petitioner was apprehended on Nov. 30, 1985 and a preliminary charge-sheet was filed in the Court on Feb. 27, 1986 and thus investigation had not been completed within ninety days from the date of arrest of the petitioner. Although the Investigating Officer has styled the charge-sheet as a preliminary one, we notice on a perusal of the case diary that the investigation had been completed. The only step that remained to be taken was to send the material objects for chemical examination with a forwarding letter of the Magistrate. It cannot, therefore, be s...
Umakanta Das and anr. Vs. Pradip Kumar Ray and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori196; 61(1986)CLT480
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants against a judgment of reversal.2. Plaintiffs who are the two sons of defendant No. 3 being minors filed the suit through their mother guardian. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from entering upon the disputed land, for a mandatory injunction against them to remove the obstructions and for setting aside the registered sale deed dated 9-4-1965 executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 which is Ext. 2 in the present case. The disputed land measures an area of Ac. 0.03 decimals pertaining to plot Nos. 49 and 59 under Khata No. 30 of village Haripur. According to the plaint case, the plaintiffs had lot of ancestral properties and there was lot of surplus income out of the said properties. The disputed land was purchased by defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 29-7-1937 from out of the surplus income of the ancestral property and, therefore, constitutes a part and p...
State of Orissa Vs. Dayanidhi Tripathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR446
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh affirming the judgment passed by the learned Munsif, Bargarh decreeing the suit of opposite party No. 1 (Plaintiff in part for a sum of Rs. 901.43 paise with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per annum per annum against the petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 4, (defendants). XX XX XXAfter discussing the facts, his Lordship observed.2. The facts not disputed and proved are as follows : The plaintiff was the occupant of the government quarters at Bolangir on payment of standard rent of Rs. 46.60 per month. On transfer to the Panchayat College, Bargarh, he was relieved on 2-8-1975. In view of the difficulties his daughter faced regarding her study, he retained the government quarters till 10-5-1976. He Was not permitted by defendant No. 2 to continue in occupation of the government quarters for the entire period on payment of standard re...
Lalita Badnaik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR432
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having caused the death of his maternal uncle Sania Sisa (hereinafter described as 'the deceased') at about supper-time on November 7, 1980 at Muralaguda by stabbing him by means of a spear (M.O. II) on his back which ultimately resulted in his death on the day following and the motive for this murder was said to be the refusal by the deceased to part with a larger area of land for cultivation by the appellant who had been reared up by the deceased and had been given a portion of the land of the deceased for cultivation. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of two witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. W. 4 Sukra Khilto and P.W. 5 Pitam alas Pitambar Khillo, the dying declaration made by the deceased before his brother (P. W. 1) and his wife (P. W. 2), the evidence of P. W. 2 that on hearing the cry raised by P. W. 4 that the appellant ha...
Manika Dei and ors. Vs. Dhadia Madgul and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori74; 61(1986)CLT436
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack rejecting a petition under Section 10 of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short). The plaintiffs are the petitioners.2. The facts may be recounted in brief. Deceased Nilap Naga was the owner of the schedule 'C' land of the plaint. He had one son, opposite party No. 2(b) and four daughters, petitioner 1, opposite party No. 2(c), opposite party No. 2(d) and Jamuna (defendant No. 2(e) in T.S. No. 132 of 1979). Petitioner No. 2 is the husband and petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner 1. Opposite party No. 1 is the husband of opposite party No. 2(c).Opposite party No. 1 initiated two proceedings (H.R.C. Case No. 32 of 1979 and H.R.C. Case No. 52 of 1979) against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act ('Act' for short) before the learned House Rent Controller, Cuttack on the grounds that there was an agreement for sale of the schedule 'C' land with a hou...
Mayachar Sha Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1948
B.K. Behera, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction recorded by Mr. S. N. Das, Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, holding the appellant guilty of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant, it was alleged, owing to strained relationship with the deceased with whom he had litigation for years, attacked and assaulted him to death by means of a lathi (M.O.I.) while the deceased was returning from the court at Anandapur and was on his way back to his village on Feb. 24, 1981.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. No one had seen the actual occurrence. The case rests on circumstance evidence. It is not disputed at the Bar that the deceased had died a homicidal death. The medical evidence would show that the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by M.O.I. The question is as to whether the appellant was the author of the crime. The evidence would show an...
Rajkishore Panda and anr. Vs. Banitia Madhya Engrajee Bidyapitha and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori55; 61(1986)CLT501
Behera, J. 1. The contesting defendants in a suft instituted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as the plaintiffs for grant of Letters of. Administration under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act are in appeal against the decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was that the late Jujesti Panda, who died on June 11, 1967 leaving no heirs or issues, being a religious-minded person, wanted to bequeath all his properties for good and religious purposes and accordingly on Mar. 17, 1967, he executed an unregistered Will (Ex. 1) scribed by Ramakrushna Mohanty (P.W. 1) and attested by Krushna Mahala (P.W. 2) and Bhairab Charan Pati (P.W. 3) at Bhadrak, could riot get it registered as it was already late in the day, returned home and having fallen ill and having learnt that registration of such document was not necessary, made over the same to the legatees providing for bequeathing of properties in favour of the Banitia ...
Raimati Sahuani Vs. Pankaja Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT402; 1986(I)OLR355
ORDERB.K. Behera, J. 1. The appellant-petitioner seeks an order of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of First Appeal No. 106 of 1977 valued at Rs. 14,430/- arising out of the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1976 and May 11, 1976 respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Balangir, in Title Suit No. 22 of 1954, presented in this Court on July 17, 1976. It has been urged by Mr. Swain for the appellant-petitioner that on and from January 1, 1985, the Orissa Civil Courts Act, 1984 (Orissa Act 18 of 1984) (for short, the 'Act') came into force conferring jurisdiction on the District Judges of the State to entertain appeals arising out of decrees or orders in which the suits or proceedings have been valued at rupees twenty thousand or less and as Section 13 of the Act provides for continuance of the proceedings in the Courts which are now clothed with higher jurisdiction and there is no express provision in the Act that the pending appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›