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.
G. Narayan Murty (and After Him) Smt. G. Simhachallamma Vs. Berhampur ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR483
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. Both the revision applications have been referred to the larger Bench by a learned Judge of this Court who entertained some doubts in the correctness of the decision inter-parties reported in AIR 1981 Orissa 29.2. The applications are by the defendant The Berhampur Municipality through its Executive Officer brought an action against the petitioner in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1905.36 as arrears of house tax, etc., for three years, namely, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, at the rate of Rs. 158.78 per quarter.The petitioner contested the claim on various grounds including the right of the plaintiff to get a decree on the basis of the new rates of assessment on the ground that it was unenforceable in law for non- compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 147(2) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (shortly stated as 'the Act).3. The trial Court dismissed the suit for the first two years, i. e., 1974-75 and 1975-76, on the groun...
Prafulla Chandra Ratho and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ori18
P.C. Misra, J.1. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ quashing the report dt./- 20-12-84 of the Commission of Inquiry and for quashing the adverse comments/findings against them in the said report with a further prayer to issue an injunction against opposite parties Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from taking any action on the basis of the said report of the Commission of Inquiry. All these petitioners except M/s. E. C. Bose & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in O.J.C No. 1884/85) and Shri Bhikari Charan Swain (petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1701/85) are senior members in the Orissa Cadre of Indian Police Service. The petitioner M/s. E. C. Bose & Co. Pvt. Ltd. carries on business of stevedoring in various Ports of India including in Paradip. Petitioner No. 2 in the said case is the Director of the Company (petitioner No. 1) Petitioner Bhikari Charan Swain is a member of the Orissa Police Service and was posted as Subdivisional Police Officer at Paradip.2. The...
Padma Charan Panda Vs. S. Ram Mohan Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR457
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The complainant is the petitioner who challenges the order of the learned Sessions judge, Ganjam dated 12-3-1980 by which order t,he accused opposite parties were released on bail obviously in exercise of powers conferred Under Section 438 Cr.P. C. since the accused persons . apprehened arrest in course of the committal proceedings for being connitted to the Court of session. When the case was heard on 30-11-1981, a learned single Judge of this Court was of the view that the case be heard by a Division Bench, Accordingly this revision has been placed before the Division Bench for disposal.2. The short facts leading to the grant of bail by the -impugned order are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the petitioner, the police registered a case and after completion of investigation submitted a final report on the ground that culprits could not be detected. The petitioner filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint and the complainant's initial statement...
K. Raghunath Rao Vs. Smt. Tumula Jailaxmi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Ori30; 64(1987)CLT304
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this Civil Revision by the defendant the order appointing a Commissioner in exercise of the power under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. is assailed. 2. Plaintiffs suit as it stands at present is for mandatory injunction to the defendant for removal of a wall constructed by the defendant obstructing his passage. The case of the defendant is that the land which is claimed by the plaintiff to be a passage is a part and parcel of his backyard which was not used by the plaintiff as a passage. There is no dispute as to the disputed land belonging to different plot numbers. 3. Before evidence was adduced in the suit, plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation. In spite of resistance by the defendant, the prayer was allowed. The following order was passed : '12-3-86. Both parties filed haziras. The petition under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff and the counter thereto are put up. Heard. It will elucidate the ...
Madhaba Kara and anr. and Mahant Rama Sewak Das Represented by Chela S ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(II)OLR470
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. Both the writ applications were heard together as a common question of law arises in them, and they are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The question thai arises for determination in these applications is as to whether after the coming into force of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short' the Eviction Act') as amended by the .1983 Amending Act, the power of removal of unauthorised occupants Under Section 255(6) of the Orissa Municipal Act (for short 'the Municipal Act') vested in the Executive Officer of the municipality will be deemed to have ceased.3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the notices issued to them by the Executive Officer of the Puri Municipality (opp. party No. 1) to remove the coverings over the municipal drain in front of their premises within 24 hours and to restrain him from interfering with their possession.4. The petitioners claim to have been granted licences by the Municipality fo...
Smt. Rachita Rout Vs. Basanta Kumar Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ655
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jajpur Road, claiming maintenance from the opposite party Under Section 125, Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Her application having been rejected by the learned Magistrate, the present revision has been preferred. The petitioner alleges that she is the legally married wife of the opposite party and marriage between them having taken place on 5-7-1979 according to the Hindu rites. The opposite party neglected her as the dowry demanded by him could not be satisfied and ultimately the opposite party drove away the petitioner from his house and refused to maintain her. It was alleged that the opposite party has married again the daughter of one Dwija Nayak and has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.2. The opposite party denies the allegations made in the petition and also avers that the...
Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vs. Charulata Sahoo and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori43; 64(1987)CLT159
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this revision the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack allowing amendment of the plaint has been challenged.2. The plaintiff (opposite party 1) instituted Title Suit No. 348 of 1980 for partition of the suit property, claiming one-third share therein. During trial of the suit her evidence and the evidence of defendant 2 (opposite party 2) had been closed and defendant 1 (petitioner) had already examined seven witnesses. At that point of time the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P.C. ('Code for short) for amendment of the plaint for inclusion of two more reliefs (i) claiming rendition of accounts and (ii) recovery of mesne profits in addition to the original prayer for partition. The petitioner opposed the amendment on the ground that the proposed reliefs claiming rendition of accounts and recovery of mesne profits were barred by limitation. After hearing both parties, however, the learned ...
Ajanta Enterprisers Vs. Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori34
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), Civil Procedure Code, where direction for return of the plaint is assailed. 2. Plaintiff-appellant is proprietor of a business concern at Cuttack. He entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1, a public limited company having its head office at Bombay, for being appointed as stockist and distributor of some of the products of the latter. On account of termination of the contract after some period of its continuance, plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No. 1-Company and its officers for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and for recoveryof Rs. 2,19,538/- with 17% interest per annum. In view of Clause 7 of the agreement, the defendant No. 1 claimed that the Cuttack Court where the suit has been filed has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Clause 7 of the agreement reads as follows : -- 'All disputes arising out of this agreement shall, failing arbitration, be litigated in Courts having jurisdiction in greate...
Lokanath Rice Mill, Nowrangpur and ors. Vs. Orissa State Financial Cor ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ori172; 62(1986)CLT477
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 against the order of the District Judge under Section 31 of the Act. 2. Without going into the details of the facts few salient features in this case can be taken note of. On 8-11-1972 the appellants applied for loan of Rs. 3,20,000/- to establish a Rice Mill at Nowrangpur. The respondent sanctioned loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- on 14-11-1972 against security hardly six days after the application. Out of the sanctioned amount Rs. 72,000/- have been sanctioned for the building. The said amount has been disbursed on January, 1973 and June, 1973. It was agreed that the loan would be paid back by instalment together with quarterly interest at the rate of 9.5% with a rebate of 1% for timely repayment in annual instalments at fixed rates from 20-1-1975 on which day the appellants were to pay Rs. 35,800/-. When the instalments were not paid in spite of demand, the application under Section 31 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›