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.
Radhashyam Routray Vs. Puranjan Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori142
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The core question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the transfer of the suit property in favour of the appellant is hit by the principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52, T.P. Act. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated thus :The appellant filed Title Suit No. 78/2 of 1969/73 in the Court of the Second Munsif, Cuttack for declaration of his title over the disputed property and for declaration of his possession or in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the respondents 1 and 2. The suit property comprised of a total area of A. 0.59 decimals out of which A. 0.42 decimals were under plot No. 1151 and A. 0.17 decimals were under plot No. 1152. This property was allotted to the share of Banshidhar Mohapatra, respondent 3, in the suit for partition filed by him (T.S. No. 71 of 1960). In the said suit the final decree (Ext. 1) was passed on 17-10-1963. Thereafter, on 2-1...
Dhanurjaya Kirsani Vs. Sukra Kirsani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori205; 62(1986)CLT123
P.C. Mishra, J.1 Defendant No. 2 is the appellant against a conforming judgment. As would appear from the pleadings of the parties the plaintiff claims to be adopted son of oneDanga ita impleaded in the suit on the allegation that defendant No. 1 had executed a will in his favour in respect of the suit properties. Defendants 3,4 and 5 were alleged to be the persons who instigated the defendant No. 1 to execute a will in favour of defendant No. 2 to deprive the plaintiff of the suit properties. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for partition and for separate possession of the suit properties. He also prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendants or anybody claiming through them reslraining them not to deal with the suil properties ignoring the claim of the plaintiff, The main contest by defendants 1 and 2 was that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of defendant No. 1 and they further alleged that there could not be any adoption as the parlies were not Hindus. In that view...
Ullash Chandra Nayak Vs. Harihar Biswal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR96
P.C. Misra, J.1. The petitioner along with four others filed their nomination before the Grama Panchyat Officer, Patalda Grama Panchayat, P. S. Kakatpur, District Puri, who was also the Election Officer of the said Panchayat, to contest the election for the office of the Sarpanch. Two other candidates who Had filed their nomination withdrew their candidature. The nomination paper of opp. party No. 1 was rejected on the ground that he was a defaulter in respect of some dues of a co-operative society. Therefore, there was a contest amongst three candidates including the petitioner. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of the aforesaid Grama Panchayat. Opp. party No. 1 thereafter filed an application before the Munsif, Puri, Under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 challenging the rejection of his nomination paper and praying for a declaration that the election of the petitioner was invalid. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No 59/84 in the C...
Snehalata Biswal Vs. Saroj Kumar Biswal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR379
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner's application Under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'the Code') claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the opposite party having been dismissed by the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, she filed this application Under Section 401 of the Code challenging the said order.2. After stating the facts, findings of Court below and contentions of the counsel His Lordship held:3. As noticed earlier, the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party is admitted. It is also the admitted factual position that the wife his been living with her parents eparately since 1980. It is not the case of the opposite party that she is possessed of sufficient income/means to maintain herself. There is some controversy over the facts whether the divorce was voluntary or it was under force and undue influence and the document Ext A is vitiated on that account. But that controversy is not very relevant for the purpose of...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pratap Chandra ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: I(1988)ACC138
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two appeals one by the insurer and the other by the owner are Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short'the Act').2. On 23-6-1982, while the claimant was moving in Pipili-Nimapada Road in a scooter as a pillion rider the Matador Mini Bus of the owner appellant bearing Registration No. ORX 4607 dashed against the scooter causing injuries on the body of the claimant on account of the accident. Therefore, the claimant filed a petition on 29-1-1983 Under Section 110-A of the Act for compensation of Rs 80,000/-. The owner of the vehicle denied the negligence in driving the Mini bus. The insurer denied its liability.3. Mr. M M. Das, the learned Counsel for the injured respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal by the insurer. There is allegation that the owner colluded with the injured claimant. The owner contested the claim petition. Insurer, in such a circumstance can challenge the claim only on the groun...
Vaisyaraju Subramanyam Raju Vs. Vaisyaraju Chandramauli Raju and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori23
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. These three appeals filed by the defendant arise out of one and the same order disposing of three different applications of the defendant and accordingly were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Plaintiff and defendant are two brothers and the dispute arose between them in respect of the joint family properties. At the intervention of well-wishers on 9-1-1985 both of them referred their disputes to a tribunal consisting of three influential persons of the locality, namely, Dr. P. Rajeswara Rao, Shri K. Kondala Rao and Sri Bellala Gurumurty. The said tribunal gave some interim direction to the parties to deposit the gold and silver ornaments and some cash which was duly obeyed by the plaintiff but not by the defendant. Ultimately the Tribunal gave their award. The defendant filed an application to set aside the said award alleging fraud against the arbitrators. This application was numbered as Title Suit No. 14 of 1984.The plaintiff bei...
Sourindra Narayan Bhanja Deo Vs. Rabindra Narayan Bhanja Deo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori47; 62(1986)CLT183
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an application for transfer of the probate proceeding from the court of District Judge, Puri to the Court of District Judge, Cuttack by one of the objectors on the ground of convenience of enquiry.2. The opposite party filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short 'the Act') for probate of the will purported to have been executed by the deceased Raja Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo at Cuttack in which the attesting witnesses were of Cuttack. The property bequeathed is situated in the districts of Cuttack and Puri. It is not disputed that most of the immovable properties and the movable properties bequeathed are in Cuttack district and the Puri court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for probate since some of theproperties bequeathed are within the jurisdiction of District Judge, Puri.3. Mr. B.K. Mahanli, the learned counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the application for tra...
Nooka Raju Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC51(Orissa)
B.N. Misra, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in cement under the Associated Cement Company Limited having its place of business at Berhampur. On enactment of the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975 (Orissa Act 24 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1975, the petitioner became liable to pay additional sales tax according to the provisions of the Act. On account of this additional liability, he has challenged the constitutionality of the Act in this writ application. According to the petitioner, the provisions of the Act put unreasonable restrictions on his fundamental rights and are confiscatory in nature. It is submitted that the Act does not come within the ambit and scope of entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Act is also challenged on the ground that it does not permit the burden of additional tax to be passed on to the customer. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the Ac...
Biswanath Vs. Smt. Uttara Bewa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ori9
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision petition by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order of the executing court rejecting his petition under Section 47 of the Civil P.C. resisting the execution filed by the opp. party-decree-holder.2. The opposite party filed O.S. No. 9 of 1973 against the petitioner and some others praying for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of the properties described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. The opposite party who is the mother of the petitioner, claimed exclusive title and possession over the suit land on the basis of a permanent lease deed said to have been executed on 29-4-1952 by its owner Kamal Lochan Misra.The occassion to file the suit, as stated in the plaint arose when the defendants (including the petitioner) fraudulently got their names recorded in the settlement records in respect of the suit land. It was specifically stated in para 10 of the plaint that on ...
J.S. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Damodar Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori207; 62(1986)CLT744
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') the petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 challenges the order dated 14-12-1981 of the trial court allowing the application of the opp. party under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 of the Code for discovery and production of documents.2. The petitioner filed the suit, M. S. No. 312 of 1981, in the court of the subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack claiming Rs. 500000/- (five lakhs ) from the oppositeparty with pendente lite and future interest towards damages for the alleged false allegations and accusations made by the opposite party against the petitioner questioning its eligibility and competence to undertake the work in connection with the construction of Mahanadi-Birupa Barrage Project. On being noticed in the aforesaid suit, the opposite party before filing his written statement filed an application under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »