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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Janardan Mahapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori253
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The principal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Court below was right in holding that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') filed by the appellants was not maintainable.The respondent, Janardan Mohapatra, a contractor, was entrusted with execution of certain work for the Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer, M.E.S. (Lucknow). A written contract was entered into between the parties wherein it was stipulated that all disputes between the parties to the contract, other than those for which the decision of the C.W.E. or any other person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding, shall, after written notice by either party to the contract to the other of them, be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be pointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents and unless both the parties agreed in writing s...
DeseIn (New Delhi) Private Limited and anr. Vs. Nilapu Yogeswar Rao Al ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR122
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners challenge the order dated 5-7-1982 of the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi, in Title Suit No. 4 of 1981 passed on their application Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (for short, 'the Act').After discussing the facts Ms Lordship observed :4. The trial Court on hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting parties came to hold that. Clause If of the agreement provides in clear words that any dispute or difference between the parties arising out of the aforesaid agreement will be referred to the named Arbitrator who is the Executive Director or any other senior member of the Company whose decision thereon shall be final and that from the photostat copy of the reply dated 10-4-1981 given by the Personnel Officer of defendant No. 1-Company to the plaintiff at his Carabandha address, it is apparent that ...
Raghunath Naik Vs. Sarbeswar Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT76; 1986(II)OLR37
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The opposite party is the Executive Officer of Mastram Math, Mansihgh Patna. Cuttack. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a house belonging to the aforesaid Math. The opposite party initiated H. R C. Case No. 36 of 1984 Under Section 7 of the Orisse House Rent Control Act, 1967 ('Act' for short) for eviction of the petitioner therefrom. The matter is now pending in the appellate Court. On 22. 3. 1985 the petitioner without the permission of the landlord or the House Rent Controller thatched the house despite protests. Therefore, the opposite party filed a complaint petition against the petitioner for violation of Section 10 which is punishable Under Section 17 of the Act. Cognisance of the offence was taken on 29.3.1985. On 29. 4. 1985 the petitioner filed a petition stating that the alleged offence Under Section 17 of the Act shall be enquired into or tried by the House Rent Controller and not by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, because, the Code of Cri...
Prafulla Kumar Singh Deo Vs. the State of Orissa Represented by the Co ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT165; 1986(II)OLR41
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Baripada, refusing to appoint an arbitrator* Under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act ('Act for short).2. The petitioner had entered into Agreement No. 2/ F2 of .1974-75 with opposite party No. 2 for executing the work of widening the pavements of N. H. No. 6 to 7-M for the value of Rs. 4,79,563.35. Although the work was completed, opposite party No 2 did not make correct measurements and did not take into account the petitioner's claim for, additional work done, but on 27-7-1978 the final bill was paid with an understanding that the disputed claim would be settled later. On 28-8-1978 opposite party No 2 refused to entertain the petitioner's claim on technical grounds. On 25-7-1981 the petitioner served a notice Under Section 8(1) of the Act on opposite party No. 3 to appoint an Arbirator according to Clause 23 of the agreement. But as an Arbitrator was not appointed, the petition...
S.K. Gue and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT154; 1987CriLJ882
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput, taking cognizance of offences Under Sections 304A of the I.P.C. and 92 of the Factories Act ('Act' for short) against the petitioners.2. The prosecution case in short is that petitioner 1 is the Project Manager and petitioner 2 is the Mechanical Engineer of the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., entrusted with the construction of the Cooling Plant of Kolab Dam Works. In the course of construction, the petitioners had erected a platform at a height of 60' from the ground level approachable through a ladder. The floor of the platform, however, was not complete, inasmuch as, there was a blank space though surrounded by four parapet walls. There was an iron barricade on the right side of the ladder but there was no such protection on the left side. On 24-6-1983 at about 12.45 p.m. the deceased, named Md. Mustafa Khan, was working along with two other labourers on t...
Kudupudi Chhitabhai Vs. Aintha Tarai
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC429; 62(1986)CLT254
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Employer is the appellant in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In course of hearing Mr. D.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the appeal is barred by limitation of one day. The Stamp Reporter of the Court has not pointed out the defect and the appeal has been entertained by this Court. Though Mr. Parija, the learned Counsel for the appellant, initially submitted that the appeal is not barred by limitation, ultimately he accepted that the appeal is barred by limitation. He made oral prayer for condonation of delay of one day which is on account of mis-calculation of the last date by the learned Counsel. Oral prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been entertained by this Court in the past. In I.L.R, 1975 Cuttack 1347 Chittaranjan Sahu v. Collector, Dhenkanal, B.K. Ray, J. observed:.The settled view of this Court is tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›