Orissa Court June 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.
Banwarilal Jilwalla and 12 ors. Vs. Hemraj Sharma and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR100
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The accused persons in a complaint case are the petitioners and they have challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has set .aside the order of the learned Magistrate and has directed the learned Magistrate to decide on the materials on record as to whether a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners or not.2. From the revision petition as well as from the records of the case it appears that a complaint was filed by opp, party No. I alleging that the petitioners came armed in a body 19-11-1976 and assaulted the son of the complainant. When the complainant rushed to rescue his son, he was also assaulted and was hospitalised, Comptainant's mother gave a written report to the police on the basis of which a First Information Report was drawn up, but as the investigation was not fair, the complainant was obliged to file the complaint case.3. The learned Magistrate received the complaint on 14-12-1976 and the initial statement was ...
Keshab Das and ors. Vs. Bauribandhu Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT146; 1986(II)OLR211
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Second party members in a proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are the petitioners and have challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge who in revision has set aside the order of the Magistrate dropping the criminal proceeding. Decided on 25th June, 1986.2. Opposite parties who are first party members initiated a proceeding Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the disputed properties and on that application, the learned Magistrate restrained the petitioners from going upon the land by order dated 26-3-1983 After hearing the petitioners and on perusal of the show-cause filed by them, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there existed apprehension of breach of peace pertaining to the possession of the land in question and, therefore, he converted the proceeding to one Under Section 145 of the Coda of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceeding, it was' asserted by the petitioners that the s...
Smt. Bana Bhotrani and ors. Vs. Bhadra Bhotra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT170; 1986(II)OLR376
P.C. Misra, J.1. The legal represeptatives of the original plaintiffs are the appellants against a reversing judgment. The common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 is one Kusan Bhotra who had three sons. Arjun, Fagu and Sunadhar The original plaintiff. was the son of Arjun. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Fagu and his son is defendant No. 2. Sunadhar died issueless. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land belonged to defendant No, 1_ which fell to his share by partition Subsequently by an oral sale the suit lands were purchased by the plaintiff and he took delivery of possession in pursuance of the same. He was in peaceful possession of the suit properties till 1975 when defendants 1 arid 2 created some trouble which gave rise to a proceeding Under Section 145, Cr. P. C. By order dated 26-10-1976 the learned Magistrate attached the suit land being unable to- decide as to which of the parties was in possession till a competent Court decides the issue. The plaintiff there...
Naka Dandu Vs. Sodi Savitri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT178; 1986(II)OLR382
P.C. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the appellate order passed by the Second Addl. District judge, Berhampur, in Misc. Appeal No. 10/83 (Misc. Appeal No. 10/1982-GDC) confirming the order passed by the Munsif dated 24-2-1982 in MJC No. 13/82.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : One Sodi Chandrama and her daughter, the present opp. party No. 1 brought Title Suit No. 15/72 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, against the present opp. parties Nos. 2 to 5 impleaded as defendants for mainte- nance and the same was decreed by the Munsif by its decree dated 21-1-1974. In execution of the said decree in E. P. No. 12/78 some lands were attached and were brought to sale which was purchased by the decree-holder Sodi Chandrama on 29-1-1980, prior to the confirmation of the sale the present petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC, laying a claim over the said land by the Strength of a will dated 13-5-1972 said to have been execute...
Panu Charan Mohapatra and Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori283; 62(1986)CLT355
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ applications seek to quash the orders passed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi suspending the payment of pension to the petitioners under 'Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972' and subsequently cancelling payment of pension. 2. The relevant facts in both the cases are similar. Both the cases were heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, both the writ applications are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case set out in the writ applications is that the Government of India made a scheme known as 'Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972' commencing from 15th August, 1972 to provide for grant of pension to the living freedom fighters, their families, if they are no more alive and to the families of martyrs. For the purposes of the scheme, a freedom fighter was defined as 'a person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of...
Sarathia Bhoi and ors. Vs. Purna Chandra Tripathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT191; 1986(II)OLR86
L. Rath, J.1. This revision has been filed by the defendants in the Original Suit No. 256 of 1979-1 as against the order passed in the suit on 4-1-1983 allowing a prayer for amendment of the plaintiff had originally brought the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants to protect the peaceful possession of the suit properties by him. In the suit a petition had been filed under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., and an ex parte order of injunction had been obtained against the defendants which was however vacated after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C, to amend the plaint on the allegation that djring the pendency of the suit he had been dispossessed of the land by the defendants on 2-10-1982 and hence he wanted to amend the plaint to the effect of declaration of his title and recovery of possession and also to delete the original prayer for permanent injunction.2. The learned Munsif allowed the petition for amendment h...
The Orissa Road Transport Company Limited Vs. Sankar Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-24-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC141
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an owner's appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act').2. In this appeal it is not in dispute that on the 14th July, 1976 at about 8.30 a.m. the bus bearing No. ORO 4420 at the appellant was coming from Khurda side towards Nayagarh side. At that time the injured-claimant was coming from the opposite direction negotiating a down gradient. There was accident resulting in the injuries on the claimant.3. The claimant filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act for compensation of Rs. 70,000/- on account of the pecuniary loss sustained by him as a result of the accident. He distributed the claim of compensation as follows:(i) Compensation for mental shock and physical pain; Rs. 6,000/-(ii) Expenses incurred in treatment, special food,doctor's fees, cost of medicine, wages of theattendant and other miscellaneous expensesconnected with the treatment : Rs. 3,000/-(iii) Future probable expenses as such : Rs. 3,000/-(iv) Co...
Khadi Kissan Vs. Thubra Kissan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ori55; 62(1986)CLT522
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. One of the defendants in Title Suit No. 54 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh has filed this civil revision petition challenging the order dated 10-8-82 permitting the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 to be examined as a witness after close of the argument in the suit. The opposite party No. 1 filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 15-5-70 by opp. party No. 2 in favour of the petitioner is not binding on him. The case was being looked after by Ganda Kissan, a relation of the plaintiff, on his behalf, on the basis of a special power of attorney executed by the latter in his favour. The said Ganda Kissan was examined as P.W. 1 in the suit. Some other witnesses were also examined in support of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiffdid not examine himself as a witness. Some witnesses were examined from the defendants' side including the petitioner (defendant No. 1). In course of argument, the power of attorney executed by, the pl...
Umesh Chandra Misra Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori67; 62(1986)CLT137
ORDERHarilal Agarwal, C.J. 1. This application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P.C., which is by the judgment-debtor whose objection to the executability of the decree in question has been overruled by the executing court, raises an interesting question as to whether a decree passed on the basis of a plaint signed, verified and filed by the Branch Manager of a bank, was a nullity and thus inexecutable. 2. The decree-holder Bank (opposite party No. 1) instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,524.27 from the petitioner and another, being the outstanding balance in a loan account against them. The said suit was decreed on contest and after passing a preliminary decree for the said amount, the final decree for sale of the hypothecated goods was also passed by the trial court and ultimately the decree was put into execution. 3. The judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code challenging the validity of the said decree, inter alia, on the ground that the...
Pravakar Baral Vs. Lakhimidhar Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori100
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Puri, reversing the decision of the trial court and refusing to make the award passed by the Arbitrators a rule of the court.2. The facts stated in a nutshell are : The lands forming the subject-matter of the suit belong to two brothers, Markanda Naik and Murali Naik. Markand died leaving his daughter Narakhari Dei and Murali died leaving his two sons Laxmidhar Naik and Fakir Naik, the opposite parties 1 and 2. According to the petitioners both the brothers Markand and Murali were separated from each other and owned and possessed their lands separately. Markand Naik sold to the petitioner Ac. 1.45 decimals of land by a registered sale deed dt. 1-10-1936 for Rs. 100/-and since then the petitioner became the owner in possession of the same. After death of Markanda his daughter Narakhari sold to opposite parties 5 and 6 (defendants 4 and 6) Ac 0.05 decimals by r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »