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.
Krushna Chandra Nanda Vs. Manorama Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT589; 1986(I)OLR579
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The husband is the petitioner and is defendant in the Court below. The wife filed an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. When the application for interim maintenance was considered, the husband-petitioner remained absent and the matter was, therefore, decided ex parte. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was the legally married wife of the respondent and further that the respondent was a qualified Engineer in the service of the Tata Iron & Steel Company. The respondent also admitted in the written statement that he owned sufficient lands and coconut orchard. On consideration of these materials the Subordinate Judge awarded interim maintenance at the rate of rupees two hundred per month from the date of the suit. It is this order of the Subordinate judge which is being impugned in the present re...
Baratam Jagannath Rao Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT618; 1986(I)OLR618
G.B. Pattnaik, J. 1. The petitioner is the informant who lodged the F. I. R. in Koraput Police Station alleging theft of gold ornaments and cash amounting to Rs. 1000/- from his house on 23-7-1978. The Police registered the case under Section 380/457, I, P. C. and in course of investigation, seized M. Os. I to IV from underneath a bush at the instance of the accused and M. O. V. from a jeweller, examined as P. W. 10 in the trial. The learned Subdivisional judicial Magistrate, Koraput, found the accused guilty of the charges and convicted him under Section 380/457, I. P. C. So far as the seized articles are concerned, the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate passed an order in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 452, Cr. P. C., directing return of M. Os. I to V to the informant after the appeal period was over. The accused preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate. No appeal was, however, preferred by any ...
Dasury Dei Alias Lakra Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR663
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 committing the murder of her husband Ladhu Lakra (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'deceased') during the night of the 24th and 25th October, 1983, at Kulba in the district of Sundargarh, by means of an axe (M.O. I). There was no witness to the actual occurrence. The prosecution had not established any motive for the commission of the offence Reliance had been placed by the prosecution on an extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before her Son (P. W. 1), her daughter (P. W. 2) and before the co-villagers including P.W. 3 who had come to the spot on being called by P. W. 1, the medical evidence and some other items of circumstantial evidence to be referred to hereinafter. The plea of the appellant was one of denial and false implication.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Patnaik has submitted that the charge has not been br...
Musi Dei Vs. Labanya Bewa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori242; 63(1987)CLT567; 1986(I)OLR598
Behera, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the findings recorded by the trial court holding that the two deeds including Ext. A executed in favour of the appellant who had figured in the court below as the defendant 1, the other defendant being Akhi Dei who did not put in her written statement in the trial court and had not examined herself either, purported to be deeds of gift in respect of the entire properties of the plaintiff Labanya Bewa, the respondent 1 herein, including the homestead land, had been executed fraudulently and by misrepresentation giving the impression to the executant that she was to execute a power-of-attorney in favour of her two sons, the husbands of the donees-defendants, to look after the properties owing to the old age and illness of Labanya who had instituted the suit for a declaration that the defendants had not acquired any right or title over the properties covered by the two deeds registered on March 20, 1968, as the deeds were illegal, fraudulent, i...
Jhumpamani Bewa and ors. Vs. Khetrabasi Chhotaray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT581; 1986(II)OLR9
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against an unreasoned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, refusing the petition of the defendants (petitioners) Under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings 2nd Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ('Act' for short).2. The facts of the case may be stated in brief :The plaintift (opposite party) instituted Original Suit No. 98 of 1981 for partition claiming half share in the suit land described in the plaint schedule on 22-4-1981. Even before filing the written statement, the defendants on 1. 9. 1981 filed a petition Under Section 4(4) of the Act stating therein that the suit'land is the subject-matter of a case before the Commissioner of Consolidation and so an order for abatement of the suit should be passed. The plaintiff in his counter stated that the consolidation proceeding in relation to the suit land has already terminated and record-of-rights has been published on 1-4-1981. The defenda...
Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and ors. Vs. Unique Builders Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori30; 62(1986)CLT43
ORDERP.C. Misra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-1-85 passed in Misc. Case No. 117 of 1983 (Arbitration) by the Subordinate Judge (I), Cuttack, The aforesaid Miscellaneous case was filed for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. The learned Court below after hearing the parties ordered for appointment of an Arbitrator overruling the objection raised by the present petitioner on the ground that only the Courts of Maharashtra shall have the jurisdiction todetermine the matter in- issue and the jurisdiction of all other Courts having been ousted by an agreement between the parties. 2. The present opp. party was entrusted with the work 'Structural Steel and Cladding Work in Bulk Ware Houses' as per the agreement between the petitioner and the opp. party. The work order issued by the present petitioners was received by the contractor (present opp. party) in their office at Cuttack. During the execution of the work certain disputes...
Dhruba Charan Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT570; 1986(I)OLR583
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognisance taken by the Magistrate under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and the order of commitment passed by the Seamed Magistrate on 3.3.1986.2. According to the petitioner, police submitted charge-sheet against accused Trilochan Sahu under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order of commitment against the petitioner who was not charge-sheeted by the police. From the records of the case, it appears that the police tiled charge-sheet against accused Trilochan under Section 489C. but the Magistrate on perusal of the entire case diary came to the conclusion that there were prima facie materials against Trilochan, Dhruba (the present petitioner) and Bhaskar under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the said offence against there persons and issu...
Satyanarayan Verma @ Sharma Vs. Krushna Chandra Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT673; 1986(II)OLR13
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Judgment-debtor is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against the order rejecting his prayer for stay of the execution proceeding in exercise of the power under Order 21, Rule 29, Code of Civil Procedure during pendency of the suit seeking the relief to get rid of the effect of the decree.2. Judgment-debtor was a tenant in respect of a house in Cuttack town. On the application of the decree-holder for evicting the judgment-debtor from the house on the ground of his confide requirement of the same, the House Rent Controller passed the order of eviction which was confirmed in appeal Judgment-debtor has filed Title Suit No. 150 of 1985 for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in the house rent control proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is without jurisdiction and is a nullity and for a permanent injunction restraining the decree-holder from evicting him from the disputed house under such a void...
Mst. Kamroon Nisha Bibi and ors. Vs. Yusuf Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori234
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. How at times justice eludes a party in the present justice system is best illustrated by this case in which, even though, the opposite parties obtained an order of restitution of property in Civil Revision No. 363 of 1981, decided on 24-8-1984 by this Court, have yet not been able to obtain redelivery of possession thereof.2. A short account of, facts will be useful to adjudicate upon the present controversy, Sobhan Khan was the owner of the schedule 'A' property of the plaint which consists of a house in Cuttack town. He left three sons -- Kalu, Kurban and Aju. Kurban was issueless. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Yunus, son of Kalu and petitioners 2 to 6 are his sons. Opposite Parties 1 to 5 are the sons of Aju and opposite parties 6 to 8 are his daughters, Kurban and Aju sold their share in the suit house in favour of Kalu by a registered sale deed dated 29-5-1952 for consideration. On the same day, Kalu executed an agreement in favour of Aju permitting him...
Ramchandra Pati and anr. Vs. Collector
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR488
P.C. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate judge, Cuttack, passed in Misc. Case No. 190/85 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction of the decree and to review the order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 76/77.2. The facts leading to this revision application may be shortly stated as follows : Ao. 13 decimals of land in mouza Gadkan was acquired by the Government by a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 26. 2. 1965 for the purposes of Engineering Research Institute at Bhubaneswar. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, on a reference under Section 18 of the Act in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/65-66 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre by his award dated 1.3. 1977. The said award was challenged in this Court in First Appeal No. 310/80. A large number of Fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »