Orissa Court September 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.
Sarada Ranjan Hota Vs. Sangitarani @ Kuna Singh @ Hota
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT552; 1986(II)OLR546
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This is an application challenging the order of the learned Magistrate passed Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month to the daughter on a finding that the daughter is the illegitimate daughter though the Magistrate found that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party had not been proved.After stating the facts and contentions, His Lordship held :There is no dispute that ordinarily this Court does not interfere with a finding of fact in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, but when the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no legal evidence to sustain a finding, then in such a case non-interference with a finding would cause miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this Court be entitled to interfere with a finding in such a case. The claim of the opposite party that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner has been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate specially in view of...
Marianus Tete Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1466
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner having been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh under Section 411, Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, altering in appeal the conviction and sentence passed against him under Sections 380/468,1.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panposh, in G. R. Case No. 1361 of 1976, is in revision before this Court to quash the conviction and the sentence.2. The petitioner was charged under Sections 380/468, I.P.C. on the allegation that P.W. 3 had opened a Savings Bank Account No. 1581 in the Bank of India, Main Road Branch, Rourkela and had obtained a Pass Book in which he was depositing money and was also withdrawing from it on occasions. The last withdrawal made by him was on 28th July, 1976. On 9-10-1976 which was the day of occurrence, P.W. 3 discovered in the morning at about 10.30 A.M. that the Pass Book was missing from his box and since he became apprehensive that somebody might be misusing his Pass Book by surreptitio...
Giridhari Dhir Vs. Golaka Chandra Nayak
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori171; 62(1986)CLT544
1. This appeal by the defendant in a suit for partition arises out of an order of the trial court finding him guilty of disobedience of an order of injunction dated 15-12-1979 by which he was restrained from going upon the disputed land. An application alleging disobedience of that restraint order was filed by the plaintiff stating that the appellant had gone upon the land on 2-2-1980 and uprooted the Biri crop causing a loss of Rs. 150/- to him. The appellant, however, denied the allegations. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge decided the matter against the appellant and held him guilty of violation of the order of injunction. He accordingly directed attachment of his landed property of the value of Rs. 500/- for a period of one year. 2. Earlier, when the appeal was taken up before a single Judge of this Court, the appellant, on the basis of a decision of this Court in the case of Roshanlal Thakur v. Kishanlal Kapoor, (1976) 42 C...
Tarini Tripathy Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT548; 1986(II)OLR497
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application by the Saroanch of Dahana Crampanchayat in the district of Koraput for the quashing of the order of suspension passed by the Collector, Koraput (opp. party No. 1) as per Annexure-7 passed Under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act.2. The petitioner has alleged that he was elected as Sarpanch of Dahana Crampanchayat in January 1984. There was no dereliction of duty and he has been performing his duties efficiently. But at the behest of some political rivals, action has been taken against him Under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').3. In the counter affidavit the opposite parties have justified the order of suspension alleging that serious irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the Sarpanch in the discharge of this function. Hence, action was taken against him Under Section 115(1) of the Act on the report of the Sub-divisional Officer.4. Suspension of an elected repres...
Rahas Bihari Behera and Lalit Mohan Gandhi Alias Bharasagar Vs. State ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1986
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT515; 1986(II)OLR614
L. Rath, J.1. These two revisions have been preferred as against the judgments passed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 89-B of 1981 and 90-B of 1981 by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir, confirming the judgment in G. R. Case No. 121 of 1976 (T. R. No. 63/67) of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Titilagarh, convicting both the petitioners Under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Since both the petitioners had been tried in one case and as against their convictions had preferred two different appeals which had been disposed of by a common judgment, against which the present revisions are preferred, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by one judgment.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Smt. Nandini Satapathy, the then Chief Minister of Orissa had come to Titilagarh on 10-4-1976, The informant in the case is P. W. 1 who was an active member of the Congress Pa...
Chaturbhuja Naik Vs. Chandramohan Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT667; 1986(II)OLR626
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 7 is the petitioner in this civil revision.2. He was set ex parte in a suit for partition when a preliminary decree was passed in which the shares were carved out in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. No appeal was preferred by him against the preliminary decree. Before initiating the final decree proceeding, plaintiff liled an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule V, CPC, and correction of the judgment and decree Under Sections 151 and 152, C P. C. to incorporate and add some properties which were not mentioned in the plaint. The trial Court allowed the applications permitting the plaint by order dated 10-11-1980 without any notice to defendant No. 7 and the other defendants against whom the ex parte decree was passed. In the same order, the judgment and the decree were also directed to be corrected. After getting the notice in the final decree proceeding, the petitioner came to know of the amendm...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Bibhutibhusan Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori230
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Appointment of an arbitrator in exercise of power tinder Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'the Act') is the subject-matter of these two civil revisions which arise out of two orders in the same proceeding. Hence, they are disposed of by this judgment.2. Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 entered into a contract in which Clause 25 provided for appointment of an arbitrator. It reads as follows :''Clause 25. Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, the execution or failure to execute the same whether ...
Narayan Biswal Vs. Ananta Mallik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR584
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Decree-holder is the petitioner in this civil revision assailing the order of the executing Court in which it found that the execution case has abated Under Section 3 of the Orissa Debt Relief Act, 1980 (In short 'the Act').2. On the basis of a hand note dated 2-11-1964 executed by the opposite party, petitioner filed Money Suit No. 126 of 1971 on 1-5-1971 which was decreed on 18-3-1972 with costs. Execution Case No. 47 of 1972 was filed on 24-7-1972 for realisation of the decretal amount of Rs. 4,249.15 paise and costs of Rs. 808.95 paise decreed with future interest. While the execution case was, pending, opposite party filed an application for permission to pay the decretal dues by instalments as provided Under Section 13 of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, which was allowed on 9-1-1973.In the said petition opposite party claimed his only source of income to be agriculture from about 3 acres of land belonging to him and some land taken on bhag basis. The first inst...
Benu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 62(1986)CLT584; 1988CriLJ331
B.K. Behera, J.1. The two appellants stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') with having committed the murder of Choudhury Naik (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by intentionally causing his death on March 25, 1980 at Dhanurjayapur in the district of Keonjhar. They also stood charged under Section 323 of the Code for haying voluntarily caused hurt to Bhaskar Naik (P.W. 8). The acquitted co-accused Kandra Naik stood charged under Section 323 of the Code for having caused hurt to Bhijha Naik.2. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 figure as witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 12 and 13 who where also examined as eye-witnesses, turned hostile and were put leading questions by the prosecution under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and gave a go - by to the incriminating statements said to have been made by them in the course of investigation against the appellants and the co-ac...
Sunil Kumar Singh Deo Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Ori)210; [1987]166ITR882(Orissa)
1. Heard. With consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits.2. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, Sambalpur Circle, under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing sale of the property under attachment.3. Proceedings initiated under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of tax for the years 1951-52 to 1958-59 proved abortive, on the holding of the revisional authority that the provisions contained in the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act were not attracted, the provision being those contained in the Income-tax Act. Proceedings were thereafter initiated under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act for recovery of the tax in question. Various objections raised by the petitioner to the maintainability of the proceedings and on merits were negatived. Hence, this writ application.4. Mr. Swamy, learned counsel for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »