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.
Lalmati Dei and anr. Vs. Champabati Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT574; 1986(I)OLR581
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This Civil Revision, under Section 13 of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963, (in short 'the Act') has been fifed by one of the co-sharers of the village officer against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, in second appeal remitting back the proceeding to the Revenue Officer for further enquiry in respect of plot Nos. 270 and 544 only.2. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a wrong interpretation of the proviso to Section 5 of the Act added retrospectively to Section 5 by Section 2 of Orissa Act 33 of 1976; the Member, Board of Revenue, has not remitted back the proceeding in respect of other plots merely because they were recorded in revenue papers as water reservoirs. According to Mr. Ghosh it is a clear case of error of law.3. In order to consider the weight of the submission of Mr. Ghosh, the proivso to Section 5 is to be kept in mind. It reads as follows :'Provided that no water reserv...
Chandrakanta Sahu and anr. Vs. Mathuri Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT610; 1986(I)OLR496
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cutttack, upholding the order of conviction of the petitioners under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C for short ) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month imposed on each of them by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23-8-1980 at midday the petitioners assaulted P. W. 4 by means of Bahungis, as a result of which, the latter sustained injuries, F. I. R. was lodged at the police station, but as no action was taken, a petition of complaint was filed by P. W. 1 on 27-8-1980. The plea of the petitioners was denial of the occurrence. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners, although, he ocquitted two other persons accused before him on the ground that the charges framed against them were not proved. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded concurrent findings of facts...
Managing Director, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR19
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal Is directed against the order dated 6-11-1984 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack2. The brief facts of the case are recounted below. The respondent was serving as a helper in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation garage at Jajpur road under the appellants. On 18 3-1982 while being engaged in fitting of the gear box in vehicle No. ORJ 2190, the respondent received an injury, inasmuch as, a piece of iron material pierced: into his right eye. He was treated by Dr. S. P. Pattnaik, Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, S. C B. 'Medical College Hospital, Cuttack (witness for the petitioner) and then in Sarojini Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. The treatment became ineffective and ultimately he lost vision of the right eye completely. On the above ground he filed a petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' ) before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('Commissioner' for...
Kalabati Dei Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR493
B.K. Behera J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Court of Session after accepting the case of the prosecution that in the morning of August 16, 1980, while Susanta Naik (to be described hereinafter as the 'deceased ), the son of P. Ws. 1 and 2, was playing outside the house and their two daughters including P. W. 7 were massaging the head of their mother (P. W. 2) who had been ailing and resting in the house and P. W. 1 had gone to the field, the appellant went to P. W. 2 and asked for a shaving blade and on being told that there was none, asked for a Katari and when P. W. 2 replied that they had no Katari, the appellant picked up an axe (M. O. I. ) belonging to P. Ws. 1 and 2 lying in their house, went out and while holding the tuft of hairs of the deceased by her left hand, cut the neck of the deceased by means of M. O. I. by using her right hand. When the cry of the deceased attracted the...
Shyamaghana Bindhani and Two ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR567
B.K. Behera, J.1. The three appellants stood charged under Section 302 read with Sec 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') with having committed the murder of Gupteswar Mallik (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'deceased') on August 17, 1980, in furtherance of their common intention. The appellant Shyamaghana stood separately charged under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for being in unlawful possession of a gun without a licence on the same day. The three appellants, it was alleged, having lost in the litigations with the deceased as evidenced by the judgments and orders (Exts. 13 to 16), went to the land of the deceased where he had gone for the purpose of cultivation with his three labourers (P. Ws. 1 to 3) and the appellant Shyamaghana asked the deceased to pray to God in his last moments. The appellants Shyamaghana and Brundaban had each a gun and the other appellant Sridhar had a Farsa (M. O. II), a knife and a lathi. The appellant Shyamaghana fired a shot from ...
Somanath Mohanty Vs. Steel Authority of India and Seven ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR531
B.K. Behera, J.1. Appointed as a Helper by the Steel Authority of India (Rourkela Steel Plant) in December, 195) and promoted as Fitter in the By-products Branch in January, 1970, the petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding being charged, as per Annexure-2, with having received overpayments of wages amounting to Rs. 5,006.51 paise for the period from January 1979 to January 1980 and for having failed to bring the overpayments to the notice of the department with a view to appropriating the amounts overpaid which would amount to misconduct in accordance with Clause 28 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner showed cause stating to have overdrawn the amounts, but had pleaded that this act was not owing to any mistake on his part and he had no intention to misappropriate the same and had not brought it to the notice of the department due to his ignorance. He had further stated that he had no objection if the overpayments drawn by him were deducted from his monthly wages in easy installm...
Shama Tudu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: 61(1986)CLT649; 1986(I)OLR536
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of the murders of his wife Maina and his son Juja under painful circumstances during the night of August 30/31, 1980, without any motive and for no rhyme or reason, by means of a Barsi (M. O. I.) and a Katari (M O II) while he had temporarily gone to the house of his father-in-law with his wife and child for taking new maize. The actual commission of murders had not been witnessed by any one. There was however, the evidence clearly indicating that the appellant and the two deceased persons were the sole occupants of a room in the house of the appellant's parents-in-law during the fateful night and during the night, the groaning sound or the deceased lady and the sounds of assault had been heard from inside the house and the appellant was later seen sitting outside the house wearing a Lungi (M.O III) besmeared w...
Nara Raghava Rao Vs. Nadiabasi Biswas
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori255
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from 86 Malkanagiri (Scheduled Gaste) Constituency.2. The case of the petitioner stated briefly is that his father late Nara Karanaya belonged to the Scheduled Caste of Domba (Dombo) community. He converted himself to the Christian religion. He married a second wife who was a Hindu through whom the petitioner was born. After the second marriage late Nara Karnaya ceased to profess the Christian religion and adopted the Hindu religion. He performed all functions and ceremonies and followed all customs and practices connected with the Hindu religion. Therefore, late Nara Karnaya, his second wife and the petitioner professed Hindu religion, were treated as such and belonged to Domba scheduled caste community. The petitioner had obtained a scheduled caste certificate (Ext. 2) from the Tahasildar, Motu.In the general election of the year 1985 for the Orissa Legislative As...
Smt. Sulochana Sahu Vs. Baman Ch. Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR558
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Subdivisional judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, setting aside an ex parts order allowing maintenance to the petitioner.2. The facts, in brief, may be narrated. The petitioner made an application on 29-5 1982 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) claiming maintenance from the opposite party as his legally married wife, the marriage having taken place according to Hindu rites on 16-1-1974. She averred that she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 18-1-1932. The opposite party denied marriage as well as his liability to pay maintenance to her. Despite sufficient service of notice the opposite party did not appear and by order dated 18-2-1982, he was set ex parte. On 10-11-1982, an ex parte order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month was passed. Later, the opposite party made an application under Section 126(2) of the Code which was allowed and the e...
Dewan Chand Chawala Vs. Pyarilal Singh Chhawada and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(I)OLR504
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision against the order of the trial Court refusing amendment of the plaint.2. Title Suit No. 19 of 1982 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 1.301 decimals of land comprising in holding No. 21 of village Kantabanji. In paragraph 12 of the plaint the following averment was made.'12. That the suit is valued at Rs. 11,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and at Rs. 500/- for purpose of court-fee and injunction and hence ad valorem court-fee worth Rs. 70.50 is paid herewith.'Defendants raised objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court Thereafter the plaintiff filed the application for amendment of paragraph 12 of the plaint and to add the relief of declaration of title to the disputed land.3. The trial Court relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in I. L. R. 1969 Cutt. 656 (Krupa Naik and Ors. v. Bhagaban Naik and Ors.) reje...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »