Orissa Court September 1986 Judgments
State of Orissa Vs. Sapneswar Thappa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT722; 1987CriLJ612
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The respondent was charged Under Section 409, IPC for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 881/- by fraudulently withdrawing the same from the 1 Savings Bank Account of Artatrana Behera (P.W. 1) while the respondent was working in the Sub-Post Office at Rourkela, Sector 19. He was also charged Under Section 467, IPC for forging the withdrawal application and warrant of payment and Under Section 471, IPC for using fraudulently and dishonestly those withdrawal applications and warrant of payment as genuine knowing them to be forged. The respondent was further charged Under Section 477A, IPC for making false entries in the records maintained at the Sub-Post Office. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent of all the charges and hence the present appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the Inspector of Police, CBI, drew up an FIR on 1-2-1977 at 4.30 P.M. under orders of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR647
L. Rath, J.1. Whether a Municipal Council which has been suspended can be asked to show cause against a notice of supersession is the question which falls to be decided in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who is a Councillor of the Parlakhemundi Municipality has filed this petition seeking quashing of the notice in Annexure-2 in which the Municipal Council has been asked to show cause as to why it should not be superseded on charges as stated in the notice.2. The Municipal Council was suspended on 19-3-1986 by issuing a notification under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 402 of the Orissa Municipal Act (for brevity, 'the Act') and thereafter on 9.5.1986 the notice under challenge has been issued.3. The sole contention raised by Mr. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that a Municipal Council which has been suspended is unable to transact any business it having been kept in abeyance, and hence, since the Council cannot lega...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Samsul Haque Vs. Mir Muktar and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT630; 1987CriLJ1455
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, in a case under Section 6A of the Dowry Prohibition Act (as amended by Orissa Act 1 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on account of the absence of the complainant has been challenged in this appeal.2. The appellant filed a complaint petition against the respondents for having committed offences under Sections 4 and 6-A of the Act on 21-4-1980. After enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereafter referred to as the 'Code') the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 6-A of the Act against the respondents and directed issuance of summons. After appearance of the respondents on 28-10-1980 and the particulars of charge under Section 6-A of the Act having been explained to them on 2-1-1981, the case for the first time was posted to 26-2-1981 for hearing. On 26-2-1981 the respondents were represented but the appell...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Parida and Brothers Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR663
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Claimant is the petitioner in this civil revision. It has sunk some tube-wells. Its claim in that report to opp. party Nos. 1 to 3 not being settled, an application Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act') was filed by the claimant in which the trial Court decided to appoint an arbitrator to make a reference of the disputes and appointed Shri G. S. Patnaik, Chairman, Arbitration Tribunal to be the Arbitrator. Against the said order, opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 and opp. party No. 3 challenged the order in two separate appeals. This Court confirmed the order [see 53( 1982) CLT 358 (State of Orissa through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar and Anr. v. M/s. B. K. Parida and Brothers and another) in M A. No. 249 of 1981 and (Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. B. K. Parida and Brothers and others). When the special leave petition was being heard in the Supreme Court, the ,, claimant and the opposite pal ties gave...
Tag this Judgment!Nilamani Dibya and anr. Vs. Biswanath Mohapatra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori227
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Order of remand by the appellate Court is the grievance of the appellants in this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u), C.P.C.2. Case of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) is that he purchased the disputed property from defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2) on the basis of a sale deed (Ext. 1) where the vendor clearly stated that she has transferable right over the property having got it in family partition. Case of the defendants (appellants) is that the disputed property belongs to deity Sri Durga Devi having been purchased by deceased Moti and the deceased husband of defendant No. 2 as Marfatdars and as such, defendant No. 2 had no transferable right over the same.3. On the pleadings, the following issues amongst others were settled :--'2. Is the suit liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Is the disputed property partible and transferable for consideration? 5. Had the defendant No. 2 any right, title and interest in the disputed property or poss...
Tag this Judgment!Rangalu Lakshmana Vs. Rangalu Seetamma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR597
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this appeal the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Berhampur, have been challenged.2. The respondent (Plaintiff) is admittedly the first wife of the appellant (defendant). Her rase is that she had married the appellant in 1946. Her father Nilamani, who owned the agricultural land described in schedule 'A' and the house and homestead described in schedule 'B' of the plaint, had no male issue. In order that the appellant and the respondent would take care and look after him and his wife in their old age. Nilamani alienated the suit property jointly in their favour by a deed of gift executed on 30-7-1947. The appellant and the respondent thus remained in possession of the suit property and looked after Nilamani and his wife until their death. But, soon after the death of Nilamani's widow, the appellant neglected and ill-treated the respondent and ultimately in t...
Tag this Judgment!The Berhampur Cotton Weavers' Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Jagannath
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori204
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. A Co-operative Society is the petitioner in this civil revision against an order under Order 38, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code where it has been directed not to withdraw the amount from its Saving Bank accounts until it furnishes security to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-.2. The main pre-condition to be satisfied for direction under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C. is the intention of the party to defeat the decree to be passed. A co-operative society has no living mind. It is to act through individuals. There is no clear finding as to how the trial court gathered the intention of the Co-operative Society. The allegation in the petition was that the defendant proclaimed to withdraw the amount from the Saving Bank to defeat or delay the realisation of the amount to be decreed. The Co-operative Society not having any voice of the own, the manner of proclaiming is to be gathered. I am satisfied that the learned trial Judge has not applied his judicial mind to give the direction...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala @ Kamalini Dei and ors. Vs. Khankiram Das Mahapurusa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR592
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. Whether this appeal has become incompetent as a whole on account of the death of some of the respondents and what would be the correct test for dealing with the question of incompetency are the questions which have fallen for consideration in this appeal under the Letters patent jurisdiction of this Court.2. The appeal is by the defendants whose Miscellaneous Second Appeal arising out of an execution proceeding has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court.3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection regarding the incompetency of the appeal was raised by Mr. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondents. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection raised by him that the appeal has become incompetent on account of the death of respondent Nos. 9,13,14,16, 17, 28, 31 and 32 during the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, it is necessary to state in brief some of the facts.4 The plaintiff-respondents filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Durel Behera Vs. Suratha Behera and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT605; 1986(II)OLR536
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Does an earlier illegal detention render a later valid detention invalid and entitle the accused for grant of bail ?This question came to the fore in course of hearing of these two petitions filed Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions judge, Puri, to Suratha Behera on the authority of D. Bhaskar Rao v. State of Orissa, 60(1985) CLT 228 Mr. S. C. MohaPatra, J. who doubted the correctness of the aforesaid decision, referred the matter for hearing by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come before us.2. On an FIR lodged on 11-10-1985 at the Tangi Police Station in the district of Cuttack. containing allegation of commission of offences Under Sections 302/323/325/347/147/148/149/379 of the Indian Penal Code, Suratha Behera (opp. party in Crl. Misc. Case No. 309/86) and others were arrested and produced in Court on 15-10-1985 and were remanded to custody till 28-10-198...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nageswar Rao Achari Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT728; 1986(II)OLR500
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, rejecting a petition Under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 'Code' for short).2. The relevant facts are narrated below. The petitioner is the owner of a passenger bus bearing registration No. ORC 4345. On 4-9-1985 the bus was found carrying 35 passengers at Dura on Berhampur-Gopalpur road. The Traffic Inspector of Chatrapur inspected the vehicle and noticed the following defects.1. There was no route permit;2. There was no R. C. book;3. There was no fitness certificate;4. There was no insurance certificate;5. There was no passenger tax clearance certificate for the sum of Rs. 50,614/- assessed upto 30-9-13;6. Tickets were not issued to any of the passengers;7. The Conductor of the vehicle did not possess a Conductor's licence; and8. The driver of the vehicle was not wearing a driver's badge.Therefore, the Traffic Inspector seized the vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »