Orissa Court August 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.
Sasi Bewa Vs. the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC352
S.G. Mohapatra, J.1. claimant is the appellant in this appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act').2. The owner has not challenged the liability for compensation awarded which is on the basis of the negligent driving. It is, therefore, not open to the owner to challenge the finding of negligence in appeal by the claimant without filing a cross-objection to that effect. Accordingly, the negligent driving of the vehicle which caused the accident resulting in the death of the injured is confirmed.3. claimant aged 51 years is the mother of the deceased a rickshaw puller aged 22 years. She claimed Rs. 70,000/- as compensation alleging that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 350/- per month. The Tribunal has found that the annual contribution is only Rs. 600/- or in other words Rs. 50/- per month. In the absence of any positive evidence where the claimant stated to be fully depending on the earning of her son, there cannot be any higher irrationali...
Basudev Gouda Vs. Narsingha Patra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori278
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order of remand passed by the appellate court in exercise of the power under Order 41, Rule 23-A, C.P.C.2. In the suit for injunction, a commissioner was deputed for finding out whether there is encroachment on the plaintiff's land on which it is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has started construction of the house. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the appellate Court found that the writ to the Commissioner has not been properlycomplied with. Accordingly, it set aside the decree and directed to hear the suit afresh after deputing another Commissioner for measurement.3. Mr. S. S. Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the order is vitiated on account of the fact that the report of the Commissioner is not the only evidence in this case and there are other materials on record from which the appeal could have been decided by the appellate Court.Mr. R K. Panda, t...
Pitabash Chhotaray Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori60; 64(1987)CLT621; [1988]64CompCas549(Orissa)
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. The question that has arisen in these two matters -- a Civil Revision and a Miscellaneous Appeal have been filed by way of abundant caution -- is, if the provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 58 of the C.P.C. are applicable to proceeding under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (Central Act No. LXIII of 1951) (Hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Section 32 thereof. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in short are : One Parikhit Chhotary, brother of the petitioner, had obtained a loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called, 'the Corporation') mortgaging certain property as security for the loan. On his default in payment of loan, steps were taken for sale of the property mortgaged. In course of the proceeding, the property was directed to be sold. At this stage, the petitioner, brother of Parikhit, filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the C.P.C. for the lifting of the order of attachment and release...
inda Bewa and anr. Vs. Bharmananda Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori154
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J. 1. The opposite party instituted Title Suit No. 140 of 1978 in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from entering upon the disputed property which was plot No. 743 in mouza Bisinabar in the town of Cuttack and from interfering with his possession. On a motion for temporary injunction, the trial court after hearing both the parties issued an order of temporary injunction on 18-1-1979. The petitioners have their plot on plot No. 745 which is adjacent to the disputed plot No. 743. The opposite party alleged that despite the order of temporary injunction, the petitioners entered upon the disputed property around 11 a.m. on 31-3-1981, broke the eastern wall of one of the rooms standing on plot No. 743. The opposite party thereupon filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for punishing the petitioners for disobedience of the order of temporary injunction. I...
Mahommed Zariff and anr. Vs. Sk. Zinaullah
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ55
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. In this revision under Section 482 of the Cri. P.C. read with Section 401 thereof, the petitioners seek the quashing of an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri, directing release of a truck to the opposite party, reversing the direction of the Magistrate releasing the truck in favour of petitioner No. 1.2. Truck bearing registration number OSP. 3707 belonged to the opposite party. He purchased the same after obtaining financial assistance from the State Bank of India, City Branch, Cuttack. He entered into an agreement with the petitioners on 15-1-1981 for sale of the truck. Consideration for the sale was fixed at Rs. 1,70,000/-. The dues of the State Bank of India were to be included in the amount of consideration fixed. The arrangement was that after payment of the dues of the Bank, the opposite party would receive Rs. 82,000/-; out of which he was paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash that day and possession of the vehicle in running condition was delivered to the pet...
Santilata Bastia and ors. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC262; 65(1988)CLT497
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The widow, minor children - son and daughter, and mother of one Madhab Chandra Bastia who died in an accident on 27-4-1978 while proceeding on the Cuttack-Paradeep road at Tatalapada due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration number OSC 409/65 are the appellants against a decision of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, determining Rs. 20,000/- as compensation payable to them.2. Madhab Chandra Bastia was a constable and was proceeding on the fateful day towards Kisannagar on the left side of the road. The vehicle is alleged to have come at a high speed and run over him. Madhab died at the spot. The widow, minor children and the mother claimed Rs. 49,000/-as compensation. The owner did not contest but the insurer did and refuted the allegations and did not adduce any evidence. The claimants adduced evidence by examining three witnesses and proving the Service Book of Shri Bastia. No evidence was placed on behalf of the owner a...
Adikanda Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1884
B.K. Behera, J.1. The order of conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, after acceptance of the case of the prosecution that during the night of Aprl. 27/28, 1975, the appellant committed the murder of Musi Dei (hereinafter descrbed as 'the deceased') by stabbing her on her chest, has been based on circumstantial evidence.2. It admits of no doubt that the deceased had died a homicidal death. The question is as to whether the appellant was the author of the crime.3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the circumstances had not been established and even assuming that they had been, they would not be sufficient to sustain the charge of murder.4. In order that circumstances appearing in the evidence can sustain a charge, the following conditions must be fulfilled:(a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.(b...
Mannu Nehera Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1911
ORDERB.K. Behera, J.1.The petitioner with twenty-three co-accused persons stood trial in the Court of Session being charged under Sections 147, 337, 323 and 436 read with Section 149 of the Penal' Code (for short, the'Code') and under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The accused persons, it was alleged, set fire to the houses of Khadika Bewa and Kashj Naik in the Harijan Bustee and pelted stones and assaulted some of the Harijan people by being armed on Mar. 24, 1980. The plea of the petitioner and the co-accused persons was one of denial and false implication. On a consideration of the evidence of thirteen witnesses examined for the prosecution and the other materials placed before the trial court, the Court held that the charge of arson against the present petitioner had been established He was convicted under Section 436 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 151/- and in default of pa...
Kintali China Jaganadham and ors. Vs. K. Laxmi Naidu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ori100; 64(1987)CLT493
ORDERR.C. Patnaik, J.1. Grant of leave to the opposite parties 1 to 3, the plaintiffs, by the Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure during the pendency of a suit has given rise to this Civil Revision. 2. The facts briefly stated are : Title Suit No. 13 of 1980 was filed by opposite parties 1 to 3 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rayagada. The petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 549 of 1980 Challenging the maintainability of the suit This Court granted anprder of stay. During the pendency of the revision, an application was filed for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one, or in the alternative, for return of the plaint on the ground that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. No order was passed thereon inasmuch as the further proceedings of the suit had been stayed by this Court. Then a motion was made to this Court for grant of leave to the Subordinate Judge to dispose of the said application and this Court allowed th...
State of Orissa Vs. Premalata Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC72
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The grant of compensation to the legal representative of one Ananda Prasad Mohanty, who died in a motor accident on 2-12-1981, is the subject-matter of these two appeals-one by the owner and the other by the claimants (legal representatives of the deceased).2. Ananda Prasad Mohanty was a Sub-Assistant Engineer working in the Irrigation and Power Department of the Government of Orissa. On 21-2-1981, he was travelling on duty in a Government jeep bearing registration number ORP 2137. The vehicle was proceeding from Rengali to Dhen-kanal. Near Baghlunda it dashed against a heap of earth and fell off the road. Ananda was seriously injured and succumbed at the spot. An application was filed Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by his mother, widow and minor children claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the pecuniary loss etc. sustained by them. It was alleged that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the driver.3. The owner of the vehicle wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›