Orissa Court May 1986 Judgments
Sulochana Dei Vs. Khali Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori11
Behera, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed in the suit instituted by the appellant as the plaintiff for a declaration of her title over the lands in suit and confirmation of her possession thereof and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with her possession over the suit properties.2. The appellant is the daughter of late Chintamani Dalai born through Khali Dei (respondent 1). On the death of Chintamani, Khali had taken a second husband (respondent 1(a)) according to the Dwitya form of marriage. The respondent 2, who had figured as the defendant 2 in the Court below, is the brother of Khali. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the properties described in schedule 'A' of the plaint were the ancestral raiyati lands of the family and the properties described in schedule 'B' of the plaint were Khamar lands belonging to her. In 1954, her father died leaving her and his widow Khali, In the month of Falgun of...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chitta Prasad Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori14
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner who was an applicant for admission to the Post-Graduate Course pursuant to the prospectus (Annexure-1), has challenged the legality of Clause 2 and Clause 7.6.1 of the Prospectus and has prayed for a direction to opposite party No. 4 to entertain the petitioner's application for admission to the 2 years Post-Graduate Course as an inservice candidate.2. The petitioner asserts that he completed his M.B.B.S. Course from the Utkal University as a student from the S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack and thereafter completed the Rotating Internship from the said institution. The petitioner then joined a Diploma Course in Orthopaedics in the Christian Medical College, Vellore, and successfully completed the same on 31-5-1984. He then joined the Government service in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Orissa and was posted 'in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital with effect from 7-11-1984. After the prospectus for admission to the Post Gradu...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Leena Das and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ori277; 1986(II)OLR103
Behera, J.1. The ten petitioners in O. J. C. No. 2726 of 1985 claim to have passed he annual M. B. B. S. Examination from the Berhampur University in October, 1984 and completed their compulsory rotating internship by the end of October, 1985. O. J. C. No. 2770 of 1985 has been filed by twenty-one petitioners who claim to have passed the annual M. B. B. S. Examination from the Utkal University and completed compulsory rotating internship by December 16, 1985. O. J. C. No. 2802 of 1985 has been filed by five petitioners who claim to have passed the annual M. B. B. S. Examination from the Berhampur University and completed their compulsory rotating internship by November 4, 1985. The sole petitioner in O. J. C. No. 2831 of 1985 claims to have passed the M. B. B. S. examination from the Utkal University and completed compulsory rotating internship by the end of October, 1985. Eight petitioners have claimed to have passed the M. B. B. S. Examination from the Utkal University and completed ...
Tag this Judgment!Nilambar Mahalik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR50
B.K. Behera, J.1. The appellant stood charged Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') for having dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or Otherwise converted to his own use a sum of Rs. 16,760.00 entrusted with him and kept under his control as a public servant while he was functioning as the Executive Engineer in charge of the Electrical Investigation Division-II by utilizing false bills and vouchers bearing No. D. C. V. No. 302-A dated February 18, 1971 and D. C. V. No. 334 dated March 31, 1971 as genuine and Under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code for having fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the aforesaid documents having known or having reasons to believe at the time of their use that they were forged documents, with the intention to misappropriate the moneys covered by the vouchers.2. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined fourteen witnesses. The appellant had pleaded not guil...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Lucas Barla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT27; 1986(I)OLR680
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panposb, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arm Act, 1959 ('Act' for short).2. The prosecution case in short is that on 5-12-1979 a country made pistol (M. O. I) was seized from the possession of the respondent by seizure list (Ext. 1). The respondent denied that he Was in possession of M. O. I. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that in the absence of the report of the Ballistic Expert that the country made pistol (M. O. I) was a fire-arm within the definition of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused-respondent.3. The only point for consideration is whether the country made pistol (M. O. I) or the article, which appeared to be a country made pistol and was seized from the possession of the respondent, came within the definition of 'fire-arm' under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Satrughna Lenka Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT36; 1986(II)OLR27
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner, who is serving as an Inspector of Co-operative Societies has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court for a direction to the opposite party to pass appropriate orders allowing the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar in the time-scale of pay with effect from February, 1976. According to the petitioner's case, his pay in the revised scale of pay was fixed with effect from 1-1-1974 in the time-scale of pay of Rs. 400-10-15-500-E.B.-20-62Q/-. On 1-2-1976, the petitioner reached the stage where he was required to cross the Efficiency Bir and though the intermediate superior recommened his case for allowing him to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1-2-1976, but the competent authority did not pass any order allowing the petitioner to cross the bar. In 1978, again the petitioner's case was considered, but the competent authority passed an order on 25-1-1978 indicating that the petitioner should wait for another y...
Tag this Judgment!Braja Mohan Naik and ors. Vs. Chakradhar Patel and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR180
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Kuchinda, permitting withdrawal of the suit under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short).2. Opposite party No. 1 claiming to be the adopted son of Ramakrushna Patel and his wife Shrimati Patel and further claiming under a registered deed of gift executed by Shrimati Patel in his favour on 25-10-1957 in respect of the suit property consisting of house, homestead and agricultural land initiated a proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Misc. Case No. 4 of 1975) in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Kuchinda, against the petitioners and the Predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties 2 to 8. In that proceeding, the suit property was attached Under Section 145(1) and the parties were directed to establish their rights in a competent Court. Thereafter, he instituted Title Suit No. 4 of 1977 and averred in the plaint that being...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Meher Vs. Jadumani Meher
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT92; 1986(II)OLR55
P.C. Misra, J.1. This is a revision challenging the order of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh passed on the petitioner's application Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She filed the said application Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/--per month from the present opp. party on the ground that she is his wife and that she has been neglected to be maintained by him.2. The petitioner alleged that she married the opp. party in accordance with their caste and custom and they lived as husband and wife for some years. Gradually the opp. party and his mother illitreated the petitioner and she was assaulted on many occasions. She was not. liked in the family of her in-laws, as no child was born to her. In course of time ill-treatment reached at such a stage that it became impossible on her part to tolerate. In the middle of the year 1981, she was assaulted by the opp. party by which her left eye was affected ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Puspalata Rout Vs. Damodar Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori1
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J. 1. This revision by the wife is directed against an appellate decision upsetting an order of the trial court recalling a decree passed by it under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.2. The undisputed facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18-6-1979. The first issue was born on 12-5-1980 and the second on 19-8-1981. On 9-2-1982 a joint petition was filed by the parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce alleging that both the parties had fallen out and were living separately since 16-12-1980; the petitioner had deserted the opposite party and was residing at her father's place; attempts to bring about reconciliation between them had failed. The application was filed through a common lawyer. On 10-8-1982 just on completion of six months, a joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prasad Parida Vs. State of Orissa Through Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT116; 1986(II)OLR31
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the adjudication of the. authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, treating him and his brother as a 'body of individuals' and determining the ceiling area and the surplus land on that basis2. Ramahari Parida admittedly died in 1950 leaving behind the petitioner Surendra and Debendra, In a suo motu proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), the contention of the brothers that there was a partition was negatived, as the document produced by them was not a registered one and the ceiling area and surplus lands were determined treating them as a body of individuals'. Being unsuccessful in appeal and revision, they have moved this Court for a certiurari-3. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the authorities have gone wrong 1n negativing the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »