Orissa Court July 1986 Judgments
Amiya Bhusan Tripathy Vs. Ahammad Ali
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori203; 62(1986)CLT344
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This revision by the defendant arises out of an order of the trial court refusing defendanl's application dated 4-9-1985 for rejecting the report of the pleader commissioner dated 3-5-1984. 2. In the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant petitioner from interfering in any way in the possession of the plaintiff opposite party over the disputed land, the latter filed an application for ad interim injunction which was registered as Misc. Case No. 75 of 1984. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by the trial court. Though the date of appearance was fixed to 10-5-1984. petitioner had entered appearance on 26-4-1984. Without service of copy of the petition, plaintiff filed an application on 1-5-Against order of B. C. Rath, Munsif, Bhubaneswar, D/-15-1-1986.1984 in the Misc. Case for deputing a pleader commissioner to inspect the disputed property on the allegation that violating the order of injunction the defendant is constructing a wall ove...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Bewa and anr. Vs. Kasinath Chandra Behera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT360; 1986(II)OLR286
H.L. Agarwal, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants under Chapter VII!, Rule 2 of the Orissa High Court Rules from the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court.2. The plaintiff - respondent; applied for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a registered Will dated 29-1-1973 executed by one Arjuna Chandra Behera claiming himself to be his adopted son in the Court of the District Judge, Puri.The application was contested by the appellants on various grounds, inter alia, that the Will was neither genuine nor properly executed and attested. The trial Court decreed the suit and ordered for issuing Letters of Administration along with a copy of the Will in favour of the plaintiff. The appellants challenged the judgment of the trial Court in this Court in First Appeal, but the learned single Judge dismissed their appeal and accordingly, they have filed the present appeal against that judgment.3. The learned counsel for the appellants pressed the appeal before us mainly...
Tag this Judgment!Jaisingh @ Gujarmal Salopal Vs. Smt. Rajendra Kaur and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT268; 1986(II)OLR232
Agrawal, C.J.1. In this writ application by a tenant, the interesting question of law that arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case he could deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and opposite party No. 1.2. The facts:The petitioner challenges the order of the House Rent Controller, Panposh at Uditnagar affirmed in appeal vide Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ application. Opp. party No. 1 filed an application before the House Rent Controller against the petitioner Under Section 7(2)(i) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for eviction of the petitioner from the house bearing Holding No. 74 in Ward No. 3 of Biramitrapur Tahasil on the following allegations :Opp. party No. 1 had let out the house in question to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- some time in the year 1967. The petitioner paid rent for about a year and then stopped paying the rent in spite of repeated demands. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ch. Bhimraju Subudhi Vs. State (Food) Inspector, Sambalpur Municipalit ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT340; 1986(II)OLR238
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioner was convicted Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur, on the finding that he had exposed adulterated ground-nut oil in his shop for sale for human consumption. On appeal, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate have been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and hence the revision.2. The Food Inspector (P. W. 1) along with P. W. 2 inspected the shop of the accused on 7. 11. 1976 and after disclosing his identity purchased sample from ground-nut oil which had been exposed for sale for human consumption. The due consideration for the same was paid and after dividing the sample into three equal parts, those were kept in three empty bottles and sealed properly. One of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sarat Kumar Patnaik, Managing Director, Konark Television Ltd. Vs. New ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR276
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Griminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code) the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the (earned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, taking cognisance of an offence Under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), and has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding.2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of; Konark television Limited, whereas, the opp. party is a transport company. The oppt party through its Branch Manager of the branch office at Cuttack filed the complaint petition' against the petitioner and alleged that it had transported and delivered goods to the petitioner vide consignment note No. 4447 dated 4.1. '1983' and consignment note Nos. 3694, 3695 and 3696 dated 8.3. 1983. The transport charge amounting to Rs. 15,700/- was not immediately paid for delivery of the goods, but the petitioner promised that the amount shall be paid later. But despit...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Dolagobinda Nanda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT307; 1986(II)OLR333
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, Banpur, for offences punishable Under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is assailed in this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent has a clinic named and styled as M/s. Gopabandhu Clinic' at Nachuni. On 12-9-1975 the Drugs Inspector (P. W 1) raided and searched the clinic and found that the respondent was in possession of drugs (M. Os. I to XLIV) in the shape of patent medicines for sale. The drugs were seized by seizure list (Ext. 1) in the presence of independent witnesses. The respondent was asked to produce the drug licence for stocking the drugs and exhibiting them for sale, but he could not do so. He was also requested to produce purchase invoices of the drugs seized, but he could not produce the same. The respondent described himself as a registered medical practitioner with qualification, such as, '...
Tag this Judgment!Tapanga Light Foundry and ors. Vs. State Bank of India, Khurda and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori174
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Civil Revision Nos. 471 and 505 of 1985 were heard analogously. The order which is going to be passed will govern both.2. The facts relevant for disposal of these cases are narrated in brief. Opposite party No. 1 is the State Bank of India of Khurda. The petitioners 2 to 6 and opposite parties 2 to 4 are the partners of petitioner No. 1, M/s. Tapanga Light Foundry and Co. having its head office in Calcutta and the factory premises at Tapanga near Khurda. Opposite party No. 1 instituted T.MS. No. 92 of 1982(11) against the petitioners and opposite parties 2 to 4 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Khurda praying for a preliminary decree for recovery of Rs. 94,06,349.22 and for sale of mortgaged property and pledged goods on the basis of a deed of mortgage. In their written statement the plaintiffs and opposite parties 2 to 4 did not deny execution of the deed of mortgage on receipt of loans from opposite party No. 1, but, inter alia, alleged that the...
Tag this Judgment!Nalla Govinda Rao Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT347; 1986(II)OLR247
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. The petitioner, who has been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has filed this writ application seeking relief in the nature of habeas corpus and for quashing the order of his detention.2. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of non-compliance of the procedural safeguards prescribed for the detenu in reporting the fact of his detention to the Central Government within the prescribed time limit, the order of detention cannot be maintained.3. The relevant facts which are undisputed are as follows :The District Magistrate, Koraput, passed the order of detention of the petitioner Under Section 3(2)(a) of the Act on 21-12-1985 and reported the matter to the State Government on the next day. The necessary order of approval of the Minister was made on 28-12-1985 and the same was signed and auth...
Tag this Judgment!Nisakar Rout Vs. Indramani Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT276; 1986(II)OLR386
P.C. Misra, J.1. This is a revision against the order dated 8-10-1085 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1985 setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kujanga, in G.R. Case No. 237/85.2. The relevant facts leading to this revision may be shortly stated as follows : Petitioner Nisakar Rout as the informant alleged that on 18-7-1986 Ms bollock was stolen away from his field He searched for the bullock and ultimately found it tied in the premises of opp. party No. 1, indramani Das. F. I. R. having been ladged.. by him, the police took up investigalion and seized the bullock from the premises of Indramani Das, opp. party No. 1. The said Indramani Das produced a receipt before the Investigating Officer evidencing his purchase of the bullock from Anam Rout, who is alleged fay the informant to be his adoptive father. The I. O. gave zima of the bullock to one Baman Charan Behera whereafter the informant made an application before...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Chandra Rout and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT244; 1986(II)OLR242
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. In this writ application the question that falls for our determination is as to whether the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act') would not apply to a case where the dispute and complaint is with respect to the recruitment, or, for that matter, appointment in the service itself of a person.2. The facts :In pursuance of an advertisement, the petitioners had applied for recruitment as Sub-inspectors of Police through the Employment Exchange. About 990 candidates had appeared at the written test, and a viva voce test was held in,February, 1984. Initially, only 354 candidates were called for the viva voce test, but subsequently 240 more candidates were called and the Central Selection Board published a select list of 215 candidates including the petitioners in February, 1984. Against the 134 existing vacancies, 110 candidates were selected for appointment and sent for training. However, some difficulty arose with respect to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »