Orissa Court July 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.
Dayanidhi Behera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR191
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this criminal revision the petitioner, accused in a case Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C for short), has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, who on the petition of the prosecution permitted examination of two witnesses in exercise of his powers Under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short).2. According to the prosecution case, P. W. 1 was assaulted by the petitioner on 12-6-1979 in presence of witnesses by means of a Bhala, which is a sharp cutting weapon, whereby, the former sustained a grievious injury The prosecution examined eight witnesses and closed its case on 28-3-1985. The statement of the petitioner Under Section 313 of the Code was recorded on 8-4-1985. Arguments were heard on 9-5-1985 and the case was posted for judgment to 18-5-1985. On 18-5-1985, the prosecution filed a petition to the effect that, two persons, namely, Mahendra Kumar Rout and Balaram Ojha...
Kabiraj Murmu Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT287; 1986(II)OLR421
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this criminal revision the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore, affirming his conviction and sentence for offences Under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C' for short).2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, a refuges from Bangladesh, having been rehabilitated in Malkangiri area of Koraput district, was engaged as a petty contractor under Dandakaranya Development Authority ('D. D. A.' for short) to execute minor works. For the purpose of financial transactions and encashment of cheques and bills, he had opened a current account with the Malkangiri Branch of the State Bank of India on 8-4-1975. On 13-8-1975 he received an account payee cheque (Ext. 2) for a sum of Rs. 1,257.90 for work previously executed. He committed forgery of the cheque (Ext.2) and by tampering with the figures and words contained in it, converted the cheque to be one for Rs. 20,257.90. On the following day (14-8-1975), he presen...
Smt. Susama Acharya and anr. Vs. Baikunthanath Acharya and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori180; 63(1987)CLT358
B.K. Behera, J. 1. Sakhi Dibya, whose legal representatives figure as the appellants, had made an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') inTitle Suit No. 41 of 1975 to direct the defendants opposite party Nos. 4 to 6, who were said to be the Arbitrators in possession of the award, to produce it in the court or causing the same to be produced together with any depositions and documents which might have been produced or proved before them and the alleged original arbitration agreement within a time to be fixed by the court and to have the effect thereof determined as the appointment of the Arbitrators was without her knowledge and no agreement had been executed by the parties. The Arbitrators filed a sealed cover purported to have contained the award without intimating the parties about the same and no formal notice or intimation about it was received by the parties from the court However, an application was made by the petitioner under Sections ...
Bogarpu Mahalakshmi Vs. Janardan Sahu (Died) Laxminarayan Sahu and ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR223
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment The suit lands were the inam lands and the recorded Inamdar was one Bogarpu Narasimhulu. Defendant No 1 is the widow and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the said Inamdar. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right of occupancy over the suit lands on setting aside the settlement of the lands in favour of defendant No. 1 by the Collector under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and for permanent injunction against the defendants from claiming rajbhag from the plaintiffs. According to the plaint case, the recorded Inamdar conferred right of occupancy in the suit lands on Ganapati, father of plaintiff No. 1, in the year 1944 and since then Ganapati has been in possession as an occupancy raiyat over the suit lands. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are sons of brothers of Ganapati. After the death of Ganapati, the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit lands. In the year 1961, the lands vested in the Stat...
Bhama Meher Vs. Kausalya Meher and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT226; 1986(II)OLR203
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this revision the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, refusing to drop the proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short).2. A proceeding Under Section 145 of the Code in respect of the disputed land with an area of 0 95 acres out of plot No. 35 of M. S. holding No 58 of mouja Badturang was initiated at the instance of the first party Nakul Meher who was the predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties 1 to 1(c). According to the case set up by Naku' Meher, the disputed land exclusively belonged to his mother Marehi Meherani who on 6-1-1965 executed a deed of gift in his favour and put him in possession thereof After the death of Marehi Meherani, her daughters, except the petitioner, acknowledged the gift in favour of Nakul Meher.In view of his title and continuous possession the disputed land was recorded in the record-of-rights and was mutated in his name. But in the year 19...
Madan Pradhan Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR345
B.K. Behera, J.1. The prosecution has presented an extremely pathetic case of a father killing his two sons aged three years and one year in painful circumstances. The appellant with his wife (P. W. 1) and his two sons Ranjan and Niranjan (to be described hereinafter as the 'deceased') was staying in the house of) his mother-in-law. His lusty eyes fell on the younger sister of his wife whom he wanted to have his own. This was not accepted to, Dissensions grew and after dividing the produce of the land, the appellant left the house of his mother-in-law (P. W. 2) for his own viliage on December 29, 1980, with his wife and the deceased persons carrying some paddy, utensils and household articles in a bullock-cart. On the way, the appellant asked his wife (P. W. 1) to wash the utensils in the waters of a Jora(water stream). P. W. 1 left with the utensils. The appellant then brought out a Tangia (M. O. I) and killed his two children by dealing successive blows on their necks and other porti...
Prafulla Kumar Pati Vs. Paramananda Sethi and ors. and Smt. Nilamani S ... Overruled
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT236; 1986(II)OLR130
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. Both these writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment as the facts and the question of law involved therein are the same and similar, namely, as to whether the Court has to refer only to the Presidential Notification issued under Arts. 341 or 342 of the Constitution of India to determine as to whether any particular person belongs to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe notified therein or the Court can look into any other material of circumstances also to give the advantage to any other caste or tribe by reason of the party of functions or vocations followed by the members thereof2. Although the question has come up for consideration before this Court as also the Supreme Court on several occasions and the same seems to have been fairly settled, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urgued that it is not possible for the Court to look beyond the Presidential Notification with reference to some of the observati...
Bhaskar Sahu Vs. Anama Swara and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori138
P.C. Misra, J. 1. Defendant 1 in Title suit No. 23/70 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur is the appellant in this appeal. The suit is one for division of the suit properties in two equal shares and allotting one such share to the plaintiff.2. The plaintiffs case as stated in the plaint is that one Agadhu Kavi Ratna and one Lakshman Padhi constitute a joint Hindu Mitakshara family and the said family possessed ancestral as well as sell-acquired properties. Agadhu Kavi Ratna died in or about the year 1980 and Lakshman Padhi died in the year 1939. After the death of Lakshman differences arose among the members of the joint family and the two branches represented by their respective successors became divided in status partitioning amicably the moveables possessed by the joint family between themselves half and half. There was no partition of the residential houses and the two branches used to occupy different portions thereof by mutual arrangement. The other lands belonging t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›