Orissa Court October 1987 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.
Mahadeb Pati and ors. Vs. Geli Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori144
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of an order of remand passed by the appellate court in exercise of the under Order 41, Rule 23-A, CP.C.2. The short facts necessary for this appeal may be stated :During the pendency of the suit the area in which the disputed land is situated came under consolidation operation in view of Notification under Section 3(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. No order of abatement was passed in the trial court under Section 4(4) thereof and the suit was decreed. In appeal by the defendants the question of abatement of the suit was raised and the appellate court has found that the order of abatement ought not to be passed. With the said finding, the appellate court set aside the decree and remitted the matter back with a direction to keep the suit pending till notification under Section 41 of the Act is issued.3. It is not in dispute before me for the purpose of this appeal th...
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, In-charge of Check ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC76(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra and V. Gopalaswamy, JJ.1. The owner of goods, which were being transported in course of its business through the check gate established under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, is the petitioner in this writ application against a demand made by the officer-in-charge of the check gate at Sohella.2. It is not in dispute that the goods were carried on the strength of way bills as prescribed under the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. When the goods reached Sohella check post, the vehicle was detained and notice in form VIJB (annexure-1 series) was issued to the petitioner on 4th December, 1986 requiring removal of defects in the way bills or payment of Rs. 36,241. Against the order demanding the aforesaid amount, a revision was filed before the Commissioner of Sales Tax.3. Rule 94 of the Rules made under the Act authorises issue of notice in form VIB for removal of defects in the way bill. The Commissioner, therefore, should have examined if the way bills in form No. XXXII have any defe...
Madan Mohan Behera and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-14-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1574
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Criminal P.C. On opportunity being given, Mr. R.K. Patra, the learned AddL Govt. Advocate appearing as Public Prosecutor in this case brought the Police records and placed before me.2. One of the pre-conditions for granting anticipatory bail is the apprehension of being arrested in a non-bailable offence. Petitioners moved the learned Sessions Judge under Section 438, Cr. P.C. and by order dated 21-8-1987 the application has been rejected on the finding that there are materials on record against the petitioners. Petitioners moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 713 of 1987 which has been dismissed. It is explained that the name of Mr. R. Mohanty, who was engaged in the said case did not appear in the list and prayer being made for adjourment on behalf of Mr. Mohanty, the same was refused and the application was rejected. It is not the case of the petitioners that names of other counsel did n...
Bibijan and ors. Vs. Durga Bai and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori246
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Dispute in this civil revision relates to a house in Chatrapur town.2. Undisputedly, the landlord decree-holder has obtained an order of eviction against the judgment-debtor under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act and has initiated Execution Proceeding under Section 15 of the said Act against the judgment-debtor. Mother and minor brothers of the judgment-debtor (opposite party No. 2) are the petitioners in this civil revision which arises out of the said Execution Proceeding. Endeavour of the petitioners to continue as tenant of the house by filing an application objecting to the executability of the decree on the ground that the order of eviction is not against them having become unsuccessful, a suit has been filed by the petitioners in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chatrapur registered as Title Suit No. 40 of 1986 for restraining the opposite party No. 1 decree-holder from executing the decree and from interfering with the possession of the pl...
Suresh Chandra SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: 64(1987)CLT693; 1988CriLJ1175
ORDERL. Rath, J.1.This is an application invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 144 of 1986 pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., Champua since the F.I.R. on the basis of which the investigation has started does not disclose any offence. The F.I.R. was lodged by the Executive Officer, N.A.C., Joda on 3-4-86 stating that it had been found in course of audit of the accounts of N.A.C. for the year 1984-85 of the petitioner having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,302/- through adoption of fraudulent process and that the amount related to collection vide miscellaneous receipt Nos. 841 to 852. It is the petitioner's case that the audit referred to in the F.I.R. as its basis did not disclose any offence against the petitioner, much less found him to have misappropriated any money, and hence the F.I.R. being based on such audit report, the investigation commenced upon it is liable to be quashed The petitioner has extracted the r...
Chaniram Sahu Vs. Samaru Nag and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori136; 65(1988)CLT56
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the decision of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit on reversing that of the trial court.2. The appellant filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1974 in the court of the Munsif, Patnagarh against the respondents for declaration of title over the suit land, for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants, in the alternative for recovery of the sum of Rs. 500/-, the consideration money under the sale deed in question. The respondents 1 to 8 were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The plaintiff's case in brief was that the suit land belonged to defendants 2, 3 and 4 who got it by gift from their mother, defendant 5. Defendant 1 father of defendants 2 to 4 as the guardian of his minor sons sold the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dt./- 27-12-66 (Ext. 1). According to the plaintiff, after defendants 2 and 3 attained majority, defendants 6 to 8 in collusion with defendant I got a sale deed execut...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›