Orissa Court April 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.
Narayan Bisoi and anr. Vs. Raghunath Bisoi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR145
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District judge, Berhampur, restraining the petitioners from construction of a wall and directing maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the suit for partition.2. The subject-matter of partition is the house and homestead of three brandies represented by the two petitioners and the opposite party who are brothers. Each of them has 1/3rd share therein. During pendency of the suit for partition by metes and bounds filed by the opposite party, the petitioners made preparation for construction of a pucca wall, whereupon the opposite party filed a petition for temporary injunction before the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska, who passed an order of ad interim injunction against the petitioners. But after hearing both parties, he vacated the said order. The opposite party appealed before the learned Additional District judge, Berhampur, who accepted the appeal and directed issuance ...
Debendra Jena and ors. Vs. Umakanta Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ori11; 64(1987)CLT243
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The point for consideration in this civil revision is whether lands purchased by co-sharers from other co-sharers should be allotted to their share while passing the final decree in a suit for partition.2. In order to appreciate the facts, it is necessary to produce the admitted genealogy. Genealogy Siba Jena _________________|____________________ | | | | Hari Brahma Bishnu Ganesh __________|______ | | _______|_________ | | | | | | | | Rama Shyam Umakanta Thakar | Jhatu Banamali Kali | (D.9) (D.10) | | (D.12) (D.13) | Wife Pika (D.4) | Widow Mokhada (wife) | Mukhada ______|_________________ | (D.16) | | | __________|_______ | Gouri Nityananda Maheswar | | | (D.5) (D.6) (D.7) Gadei Khira (D.3) | ___________|___ ______|_____ | | | | | | Laxman Hadibandhu Debendra Barendra | | (P.1) (D.11) (D.1) (D.2) | ______|__________ ___________________|________ | | | | Sanyasi Gandu Gobinda Panku (P.2) (P.3) (D.14) (D.15) The plaintiffs obtained a preliminary decree for par...
Bhajanlal Padia Vs. Bajinath @ Bajnath Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT13; 1986(I)OLR607
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Within the limited scope of consideration of substantial question of law, this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in short, 'the Act') arises out of an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Baripada (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') awarding compensation to the father of the deceased workman.2. Appellant carries on the business of mining. In course of and for the purpose of the said business, he transports the minerals from Suleipat mining area to Badampahar railway station. To execute the work of transport, he had oral contract with respondent No. 2, who was transporting the mineral in his truck (OR J 3978). Bidar Majhi, the son of the criminal (respondent No. 1) was engaged as a coolie in the said truck for loading the minerals at Suleipat and unloading the same at Badampahar railway station and for that purpose he was making to and from journey between Suleipat and Badampahar in the truck. On 30-1-197...
Arjun Charan Patnaik Vs. Ramesh Chandra Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR644
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Injured is the appellant in this appeal under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal while accepting the injuries sustained by the appellant being dashed by the Scooter registered ORD 1782 by respondent No. 1 which was insured with respondent No. 2, rejected the claim under Section 110-A of the Act on the ground of being barred by limitation. Respondent No. 1 who had no occasion to prefer appeal against rejection of the claim challenged the finding of the Tribunal in this appeal about his causing the accident3. Appellant was a head, Moharir in the District Police Office at Rourkela on 4-2-1977 when he was injured by an accident. His case is that in the morning at about 8.30 A. M. of 4-2-1977 he was walking on the main road of Uditnagar-Rourkela on the left side of the road, when the respondent No. 1 coming by the scooter in the same direction . belonging to Anantram Misra...
The Orissa Road Transport Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Baula Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR5
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Owner is the appellant in this appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter reformed to as 'the Act'). The claimants have filed a cross-objection against the finding of contributory negligence and for enhancement of the compensation determined Under Section 110-B of the Act.2. Undisputably, the passenger bus of the appellant bearing registration No. ORP 6745, while going from Banki to Cuttack, dashed against deceased Adhikary Mangaraj when he was turning to the right to approach the road leading to Ketang Railway Station on his cycle. Adhikary died at the spot sustaining injuries.3. Father of deceased Adhikary, his widow and minor children filed an application Under Section 110-A of the Act claiming one lakh rupees as compensation alleging that Adhikary, who was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was contributing about Rs 15/- per day to the family out of his earning of at least Rs. 20/- per day, died on account of the neglig...
State of Orissa Vs. Ramhari Padhi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR449
B.K. Behera, J.1. While functioning as the Officer-in-charge of the Moroda Police Station in the district of Mayurbhanj, the respondent stood his trial in the Court of Session being charged Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having committed rape on Bari Dei alias Bindhani during the night of October 27/28, 1980, at the Chitrada Police Out-Post. The respondent, it was alleged, accompanied by some other police officials, came in a jeep to the house of Bari in connection with a reported incident regarding assault on some police officials which had occurred on October 26, 1980 and took her, her uncle Parmeswar and some others of her village to the Police Out-Post at Chitrada for interrogation. Bari was kept at the northern end while the others who had been taken to the Police Out-Post were kept at the southern end of the eastern verandah of the Police Out-Post. The respondent went to Bari at about 3.00 A M , woke her up and called her to accompany him, ...
The Orissa Road Transport Company Limited Vs. Baula Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-18-1986
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC189
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Owner is the appellant in this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The claimants have filed a cross-objection against the finding of contributory negligence and for enhancement of the compensation determined under Section 110-B of the Act.2. Undisputably, the passenger bus of the appellant bearing registration No. ORP 6743, while going from Banki to Cuttack, dashed against deceased Adhikary Mangaraj when he was turning to the right to approach the road leading to Retang Railway Station on his cycle. Adhikary died at the spot sustaining injuries.3. Father of deceased Adhikary, his widow and minor children filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming one lakh rupees as compensation alleging that Adhikary, who was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was contributing about Rs. 15/- per day to the family put of his earning of at least Rs. 20/- per day, died on account of the negli...
Sudarsan Beura Vs. Prasan Kumar Das
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori255; 61(1986)CLT629
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendant in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and possession in respect of a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.14 decimals is the petitioner.2. According to the plaintiff he had purchased the land from the ex-Ruler of Badamba on 1-6-1972 and has been possessing the same ever since the date of purchase. As the defendant tried to disturb his possession, the suit was filed. The defendant in his written statement alleges that the land in question is in the possession of the defendant which he has purchased from the very same vendor, namely, the ex-Ruler of Badamba and is in possession of the same with effect from the date of purchase which is 15-5-1972. It has been further alleged that the defendant has constructed his residential house on the said piece of land and further according to the written statement, the sketch-map attached to the plaint is incorrect.3. In course of trial, the defendant filed an application for amendment of his written statem...
State of Orissa and anr. Vs. R.N. Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR564
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, who by the impugned judgment made the Award of the Arbitrator a rule of the Court, rejecting the objections filed by the State.2. The respondent is a contractor who entered into an agreement with appellant No. 1 for laying of pipes in the Fertiliser Project, Public Health Division, Talcher. As certain dispute arose, on an application being filed, Shri Justice H. Mohapatra, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court, was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave an Award for a sum of Rs. 9,24,364/-together with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum with effect from 21-3-1976, that is, the due date of payment. After an Award was passed the claimant filed an application for making the Award a rule of the Court and the State filed abjection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the Award. There is no dispute that the ...
Radhashyam Das Vs. Gourisankar Rath
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT560; 1986(I)OLR573
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The accused in Complaint Case no. 138 of 1981 is the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 14.12. 1981 where under the Magistrate took cognisance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, is being impugned 'in the present revrsron.2. The complainant is an advocate of Bhubaneswar Bar and filed a complaint petition on 6 11,1981 alleging that the accused with whom a refrigerator belonging t6 the complainant had been delivered for repair did not part with the refrigerator by illegally demanding a sum of Rs. 350/-as Cost of repair. According to the complaint petition, even though the Head Office of the Company directed delivery of the refrigerator without any charge for repair, but the accused illegally demanded the money and retained the refrigerator as the complainant did not part with the repair charges. It was further alleged that the accused was using the refrigerator for himself ' though it was entrusted to him only for repairs. ...