Orissa Court March 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jugal Kishore Khandelwal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori113; 64(1987)CLT418
L. Rath, J.1. The Union of India as owning and managing the South Eastern Railway through the General Manager, S.E. Railway, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta-43 is the appellant against the decree passed against it for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,359.05 with costs in a suit brought at the instance of the respondent claiming damages for short delivery of kerosine delivered to him at Soro.2. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff-respondent had indented 24,500 liters of kerosine oil by way of self consignment from Budge-Budge and despatched the goods therefrom under invoice No. 1, R.R. 221658 dated 6-12-1970. It was the case of the respondent that while taking delivery of the wagon it was found to be broken and a shortage of 11,500 liters of kerosine oil was noticed for which the Station Master, Soro issued a shortage certificate and the suit was instituted on account of the loss suffered.3. The suit was contested by the appellant contending that the goods were not loaded at Budge-Bud...
State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Gokulananda Jena
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori231
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').2. The claimant made a contract on 8-2-1972 for construction of Arikul Minor Irrigation Project Dispute having arose, the claimant approached the Court for reference under Section 20 of the Act to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Court and accordingly reference was made. As per the direction of the Court, the award was filed on 16-11-1982 and Original Suit No. 325 of 1982 was registered. Notice was given to both the parties. The appellants filed their objection to the award which was registered as Misc. Case No. 127 of 1983(A). The claimant-respondent filed counter to the application objecting to the award,3. Objections of the appellants to the award are mainly as follows :(1) Reference was illegal and invalid;(2) Claim was outside the purview of the agreement;(3) Claim in respect of additional excess work was covered under Clause (11) of the agreement;(4) Arbitrator has misc...
Rama and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ori192
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J. 1. A stream originating from the hills located near Hadichira in the district of Ganjam and winding its way by village Khamar and other villages merges in Chancharabandh located in Madhupadar village. In the beginning, the stream is known as 'Nikitinala' and later as 'Jamanala'. The plaintiff-petitioners who are the residents of village Khamar have alleged that Jamanala since time immemorial has been the irrigation source of lands in several villages including the lands located in village Khamar. Thirty years back when the Rusikulya project was implemented, a pipe was fixed for flow of water from the canal to Jamanala to irrigate the land of the petitioners. It is averred that defendants 1,2 and 3 opposite parties intended to divert the water by erecting a small embankment and digging separate channel. If the defendants succeeded, the petitioners would lose the irrigation benefits and would be prejudicially affected. On the aforesaid averments, they instituted a s...
State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Nalini Kumari Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC395; AIR1987Ori279
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. In this appeal, the State of Orissa has assailed the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri, granting compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to the dependents of one Girish Chandra Patnaik, who died in an accident while travelling in a jeep belonging to the appellants. 2. Girish was the Inspector attached to Motor Vehicle Enforcement. Section functioning at Sundargarh. On 8-1-1977, in course of duty, he was travelling in the jeep bearing registration number O.R.N. 290. At a distance of 5 kilometres from Sundargarh on the return journey from Rourkela, while negotiating a sharp 'U' turn, the vehicle dashed against a tree and overturned, and the inmates were thrown off in the fields at a distance of about 150 feet from the road. Girish died while the other inmates were injured. Girish left behind his widow and five minor children three sons and two daughters, who made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,6...
Utkal Machinery Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Ori)7
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was not entitled to set off and/or adjust the unabsorbed development rebate of Rs. 5,57,794 for the assessment year 1968-69 against the income of the present assessment year ' 2. The assessee is a subsidiary of a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of heavy machineries. In the assessment year 1976-77, it claimed that the development rebate is to be deducted in preference to the unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of the assessee was turned down at all stages. The unabsorbed depreciation being adjusted, there was no balance left for adjustment of the unabsorbed development rebate. Aggrieved by the rejection of its claim, the assessee moved unde...
Harihar Jena and ors. Vs. Bhagabat Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ori270
L. Rath, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the legal representatives of the defendant against a reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate judge, Pun,decreeing the suit brought by the respondents in a representative capacity to declare the suit land as part of the village road and for removal of the foundation laid by the original defendant encroaching upon the suit land. 2. In contesting the suit one of the grounds pleaded in the written statement was that the notice issued by the Court under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. for prosecution of the suit by the respondents in a representative capacity was defective. During pendency of the suit, the original defendant entered into a compromise with respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The compromise deed contained a recital that the villagers never used the suit land. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the finding that the obstruction by the defendant on the village road had not been proved and that the respondents could not be said to i have be...
Managing Director, O.R.T. Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Rama Mohan Rao
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC441; 64(1987)CLT135; (1988)ILLJ200Ori
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Employer is the appellant in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He has deposited the compensation amount awarded out of which the workman has been allowed to withdraw Rs. 7,000/-2. The workman was a bus driver of the appellant. In course of his employment, he received multiple fractured injuries resulting from an accident of which fracture of his right wrist is one. He remained under treatment for eight months on account of the fractures. Coming to the conclusion that the fracture of the wrist has completely disabled the workman, the Commissioner has awarded compensation for total disability which is the grievance of the employer in this appeal.3. Mr. J.K. Tripathy, the learned Counsel for the employer-appellant, submitted that the decision of the Commissioner is not supported by materials on record. Further, the Commissioner has not given due weight to the opinion of the medical expert and m...
Paramhans Traders Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT606; 1988CriLJ506
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ application filed by a licencee under the Orissa Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers (Licensing) Order, 1977 to carry on business at Bhasakosh Lane in the town of Cuttack but alleged to have been carrying on business in essential commodities in a premises located at Mal Godown, Cuttack, is if the direction given by the Collector under Section 6A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for disposal of the commodities seized pending finalisation of the confiscation proceeding is invalid being a colourable exercise of power and in violation of the principles of natural justice.2. The commodities were seized on 27-2-87 on allegations that the petitioner was carrying on business by storing the commodities at a place other than the place mentioned in the licence.3. By the impugned order dated 6-3-87 the Collector directed disposal of the commodities seized on the ground that the commodities were subjec...
Rama Chandra Dora and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: 63(1987)CLT691; 1989CriLJ129
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Petitioners were charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for having contravened Clause 3 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order').2. On assessment of the materials on record, the trial Court found the petitioners guilty, convicted them for the offence charged and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The seized paddy was directed to be confiscated. In appeal, the conviction and the sentence having been confirmed, the present criminal revision has been filed.3. Prosecution case is that the petitioners were in possession of 35.25 quintals of paddy which was seized from the mill premises belonging to petitioner No. 1 of which petitioner No. 2 was the manager. 4. The plea of the petitioners is that different persons...
Anirudha Adhikari Vs. Amarendra Adhikari
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori42
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are : (i) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the application under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code filed by the respondent, and (ii) if the prayer in the application was hit by the principle of res judicata. The first point not having been raised before the trial court has not been answered by him. The second one has been answered in the negative.2. The gist of the relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :The respondent filed Title Suit No. 44 of 1980 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada for partition of the suit properties and for allotment of due share to him. The suit was contested by the appellant, mainly on the ground that there was a previous partition of the family properties between the parties and therefore the suit was not maintainable. In the suit a preliminary decree was passed by the trial court awarding to the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »