Orissa Court January 1988 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. Khetwat Oil Mills and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ori233; 66(1988)CLT788
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Baripada, passing a decree in favour of respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 17,260.10 claimed as compensation for shortage of goods in transit with the appellant.2. The case of respondent 1 (plaintiff) is that it is a registered partnership firm having its oil mill at Baripada. It purchased 160 bags of mustard seeds, each bag weighing 85 kgs, from Ambelal Madhab Das and Co. of Raja Bazar, Unjha, in Gujarat at the rate of Rs. 254/- per quintal inclusive of taxes and incidental charges as per beejuck dt. 15-9- 1973 (Ext. 1), the total price being Rs. 34,091.00. The plaintiff's agent delivered the aforesaid 160 bags to the Western Railway (respondent 2) at Unjha Railway Station for transport on rail to Baripada Railway Station within the jurisdiction of the South Eastern Railway (respondent 1). The goods were booked under invoice No. 27 and railway receipt No. 351708 dt. 15-9-1973 at the rail...
Food Inspector, Berhampur Municipality Vs. P. Mohan Rao and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT426; 1988CriLJ1534
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 23-12-1980 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampuf in 2(c)CC 195 of 1977 acquitting the accused persons (the present respondents) of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus : On 25-7-1977 at 5.00 P.M., P.W. 1 Niranjan Behera, the then Food Inspector, Berhampur Municipality, visited the business premises of respondent No. 2 (of which respondent No. 1 is the Managing Partner), a whole-sale dealer in Til Oil, and suspecting the Til Oil contained in the sealed tins to be adulterated, took a sample of 375 grams of the Til Oil from one of the tins, and after duly observing all the formalities, sent l/3rd of the sample collected, to the Public Analyst for his analysis. At the time when P.W. 1 took the sample, revealing his identity to respondent No. 1, the latter produced the cash memo receipt Ext.3 showing the purchase ...
Khageswar Naik Vs. Domuni Bewa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ori10
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The appellant who was the sole defendant in the court below has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna declaring title of respondent 1 (plaintiff 1) in the suit in respect of immovable property described in Schedules A and B of the plaint, confirmation of her possession over Schedule B land, directing recovery of possession of Schedule A land and granting mesne profits @ Rs. 326/-per year beginning from the year 1972. 2. The respondents jointly instituted the suit. Their case, in brief, is that Keshab had three sons namely Trilochan, Khageswar and Nilamani. Khageswar is the defendant-appellant. Respondent 2 is the natural born son of Trilochan and respondent 1 was the legally married wife of Nilamani. The three brothers named above effected partition of joint family property inherited from their father Keshab. In the said partition 19.06 acres of cultivable land described in the Schedule A and 0.23 acres of homestead...
Executive Engineer Anandapur Barrage Division Vs. President, Work-char ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT366; (1990)IILLJ178Ori
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. In this application by the Executive Engineer, Anandapur Barrage Division in the District of Keonjhar against the award of the Labour Court, Sambalpur, the main questions that arise for our consideration are as follows:(1) Whether the Barrage Division under the Irrigation Department of the State Government is an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act?;(2) If so, whether the members of the union (opp.party No. 1) were entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act? and(3) Whether the order of reinstatement should be set aside taking into consideration the events taking place after the passing of the order of retrenchment of the employees or after the passing of the impugned award (Annexure-1)?2. The facts briefly stated are as follows:A number of employees were engaged in the various sub-divisions of the Anandapur Barrage Division under the Nominal Muster Roll (N.M.R.). These 282 employees were subse...
Mahendra Kumar Barik Vs. Dwijabar Barik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT324; 1988CriLJ1558
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24-12-1985 passed by the S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur in I.C.C. Case No. 118 of 1984, dismissing for default the complaint petition filed in the case and acquitting the accused persons (the present respondents) under Section 256(1), Cr.P.C.2. The fact giving rise to the appeal, may be briefly stated, thus: The complaint case was posted to 6-12-1985 for hearing. On that day, the Presiding Officer was on casual leave and the file was put up before the Munsif. The accused persons were absent and a petition under Section 317, Cr.P.C. filed on their behalf was allowed. A hazira was filed on behalf of the complainant and the counsel for the accused persons submitted before the Munsif that it was a false hazira, when the case was posted to 19-12-1985 for consideration of the hazira. On 19-12-1985, the learned Magistrate heard the counsel in the matter of the hazira filed on 6-12-1985, and passed the impugned ord...
Srikrishna Timbers Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: [1988]70STC16(Orissa)
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner carries on business in timber in the State of Orissa by taking leases of coupes put to auction by the Government. It has filed this writ application challenging the vires of proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and for a mandamus directing the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the provision contained in Orissa Act 24 of 1979 and for other reliefs.2. Counsel for the parties at the hearing agreed that we should dispose of the writ application in the same terms as this Court decided writ applications of similar nature, namely, O. J. C. Nos. 868-872 of 1980, vide judgment dated 19th August, 1987 (Lavji Jivraj v. State of Orissa [1988] 70 STC 8). In the aforesaid judgment, this Court drew attention of the authorities to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited AIR 1985 SC 1293 and directed the concerned Divisional Forest Officer to determine the liability of the par...
Smt. Jayanti Munjet Vs. Asit Kumar Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ori195
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. The defendant in a suit by the husband under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') is the petitioner against an order under Section 36 thereof relating to alimony pendente lite.2. Section 36 reads as follows : --'36. Alimony pendente lite -- In any suit under this Act, whether it be instituted by a husband or a wife, and whether or not she has obtained an order of protection, the wife may present a petition for alimony pending the suit. Such petition shall be served on the husband, and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements therein contained, may make such order on the husband for payment to the wife of alimony pending the suit as it may deem just : Provided that alimony pending the suit shall, in no case exceed one-fifth of the husband's average net income for the three years next preceding the date of the order, and shall continue, in case of a decree for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage, until the decree i...
The State Vs. Pabitra Mohan Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: 65(1988)CLT299; 1989CriLJ1028
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. While considering the question of granting bail to Bhagabat Prasad Misra in Crl. Misc. Case No. 560 of 1987, 1 issued notice against accused Pabitra Mohan Sahoo to show cause why the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur shall not be cancelled. Oil-receipt of notice, the accused appeared through Mr. Ullash Ch. Mohanty, Advocate on 14th of October, 1987. When the matter was listed for orders on 27-11-1987, Mr. Mohanty prayed for adjournment for two weeks. On 15-12-1.987, when the matter was listed again Mr. Mohanty took adjournment and adjournment was granted as a last chance. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Mohanty submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. Consequently without the assistance of Mr. Mohanty, I am disposing of this matter.2. Accused Pabitra Mohan Sahoo has been granted anticipatory bail. The allegation made against him is that while he was a Sarpanch, he misappropriated some amount from gram ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›