Orissa Court August 1986 Judgments
Bishnu Mohan Mallik Vs. Dhruba Naik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR566
Agrawal, C.J.1. The significant issue which emerges in this reference to a large Bench deserves precise formulation as follows :'Whether an issue of jurisdiction decided by the trial Court can be re-opened in the executing Court, or it will be hit by the principles of res judicata ?'2. This revision application by the decree holder is directed against the order of the executing Court allowing the objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree in question is a nullity and thus inexecutable.3. The short facts are that the plaintiff filed a Title Suit for recovery of possession of certain lands with mesne profits in the Court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar. A Notification Under Section 3(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (Orissa Act 21 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act') in respect of the mouza in question had already been published in the meantime. The defendant raised an issue also regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeb Kar and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR408
B.K. Behera, J.1. This appeal has been directed against an award passed by the learned district Judge, Sambalpur, as the arbitrator under the Orissa development of Industries, Irrigation, agriculture, capital construction and resettlement of displaced Persons (Land Acquitition) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). While the claimant had valued Rs. 15,000 and odd as compensation, the learned District Judge has allowed Rs. 8,200 and odd including solatium as the compensation payable to the appellants,. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. R.K. Mohapatra has contended that regard being had to the evidence form the side of the claimants which was highly stisfactory and as no relance could be placed on the evidance coming from the side of the state, the amount of compensation has been very much on the lower side. the learned government advocate has submitted that regard being had to the evidence adduced by both the sides, it would appear that the amount of compensation is rather on the l...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Panda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT450; 1986(II)OLR262
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order of the Election Officer dated 27-7-1984 rejecting the nomination of Sri Bhaskar Panda, representative of Dhaleswar Service Co-operative Society, is under challenge in the present writ petition.2. The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is that election to the Board of Directors of the United, Puri-Nimapara Co-operative Bank Limited, Puri, was scheduled to be held on 1-4-1964. Nimapara Branch is a constituency of the said Bank consisting of 55 co-operative Societies and of those 55, Dhaleswar Service Co-operative Society is one of them. Under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, where a Co-operative Society is a member of another Co-operative Society, it shall be represented by a delegate duly authorised in this behalf by the Committee of the member-society and the authorisation remains valid for one year, unless rescinded earlier by the General Body. Since Dhaleswar Service Co-operative Society is one of the electors for election to the Board o...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Mohapatra Vs. Executive Engineer, Sambalpur Central Works, Di ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori59
Agrawal, C.J. 1. This case has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench doubting the correctness of the two single Judge decisions of this Court. 2. The matter arises out of an order refusing to grant injunction to the petitioner on his application filed in the court below Under Section 41(b) read with the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the application for injunction was not maintainable as no arbitration proceeding happened to be pending. 3. The important question that arises for consideration in this application is as to what would be the correct meaning of the expression 'arbitration proceedings' occurring in the said section for exercising the powers for granting protective orders Under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act'). A building contract was entered into between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 some time in the month of Aug. 1978 under which the petitioner was to complete the construction...
Tag this Judgment!Ambika Saw Mill Vs. Asst. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT470; 1986(II)OLR253
Agarwal, C.J.1. A short but interesting question that arises for decision in this writ application is as to whether the money value equivalent to the free meals supplied by the petitioner to opp. party No. 5, its employee, could be added to his salary for working the amount of gratuity payable to him.2. According to the findings recorded by opp. party No. 1 in Annexure-2, opp. party No. 5 was working as a Supervisor under the petitioner from 10-10-1971 to 29-10-1981. This finding has not been assailed before us.3. Some dispute had arisen between the petitioner and opp. party No. 5 earlier also, but on the intervention of the District Labour Officer, Mayurbhanj, a settlement was arrived at under which opp. party No. 5 accepted a lump sum of Rs. 1500/- in final settlement of all his claims from the petitioner.Subsequently, on 28-7-1982, O. P. No. 5 filed an application before the controlling authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the 'Act') claimi...
Tag this Judgment!Narasingha Bisoi Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR313
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is a convict's appeal from jail who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of one Lokanath Bisoi by means of a knife (M. O. I). After stating the facts, findings of Court below and contentions of the counsel, His Lordship observed :8. Coming now to the eye-witnesses P. Ws. 2 and 3, we find that both of them have stated that the accused and the deceased picked up quarrel and all on a sudden the accused stabbed the deceased on his neck by a knife which was identified to be M. O. I whereafter the deceased fell down after covering a distance of 30 cubits. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses is consistent and corroborates each other and nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination to cast any doubt about their testimony. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that this evidence must ...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Padhi Vs. Tahasildar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT390; 1986(II)OLR413
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This application arises out of a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.2 Undisputedly, the petitioner is a Bhag tenant under Rajkishore Thumba, opposite party No. 4, within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). Opposite party No. 4 had instituted the proceeding against the petitioner before the Tahasildar own-Revenue Officer, Athagarh, (opposite party No 1) tor recovery of the arrears of rent from 1966-67 to 1968-69. The defence of the petitioner was that he had already paid the rent upto 1968 and the money order sent for the subsequent years had been refused by opposite party No. 4. However, in the proceeding the parties arrived at a compromise, and from the order dated 9-5-1972 it appears that the petitioner agreed to pay the arrear dues at the rate of six parties per acre and further agreed to clear up the dues in two instalments within a month from the date of the order, the first instalment wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeswar @ Ganesh Prasad Mantri Vs. Bishnu Chandra Mantri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR686
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Refusal to permit amendment of the plaint is the subject-matter of this civil revision.2. The property is disputed was admittedly joint family property. Coming to know that in a suit for partition, a decree has been passed on compromise, plaintiff filed the present suit for partition alleging therein that he had no knowledge of the same.3. During the pendency of the suit, notification Under Section 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, was issued and the disputed land having come within the consolidation area, the suit for partition was to abate. At that stage, plaintiff filed the petition for amendment of the plaint for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on him. Defendants raised objection on the grounds that the nature of the suit would change from a suit for partition to one for avoiding a compromise decree and such a relief would be barfed by limitation on the date of filing the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Kumar Singh Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT426; 1986(II)OLR441
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) for contravention of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('Act' for short).2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a dealer of grocery articles at village Dharuadhi. On 18-9-1978 the Food Inspector, Sundargarh, inspected the grocery shop and suspected that mustard oil exhibited for sale in the shop for human consumption was adulterated. For chemical analysis of the mustard oil for detection if the same was adulterated or not, he performed the formalities prescribed in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, purchased 0. 750 grams of mustard oil on payment of price, obtained receipt (Ext. 1) therefor from the petitioner, divided the same into three equal parts, kept the samples in three clean dry bottles and sent one of the samples to the Public Ana...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori125; 63(1987)CLT279
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. In these two writ petitions petitioners, M/s. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and one of its shareholders, challenge the orders of the State Government in the Irrigation and Power Department and the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') imposing restrictions in supply of electric energy to their factories, refusing to permit the Company divert the energy allotted to one of its units to be used in other units and charging additional tariff for the alleged excess drawal of power by it.2. The facts which are not in controversy in the case may be stated thus :The petitioner-Company which manufactures ferrochrome has four different factories located in Koraput district. The units shall be hereinafter referred to as '11 KV. IMFAL', '33 KV IMFAL', 'IMCL' and '132 KV IMFAL'. The Company has entered into separate agreements with the Board for supply of electricity to the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »