Orissa Court January 1989 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.
Subal Kumar Dey Vs. Purna Chandra Giri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori214
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two Civil Revisions filed by defendant 1 arise out of a common order in a suit. Accordingly, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Suit is for partition in which plaintiffs prayed for repurchasing the land purchased by defendant 1. In the suit, plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction against defendant 1. Ex parte ad-interim order of injunction was made by the trial court. Defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claims of the plaintiffs. Objection to the application for temporary injunction was also raised by him. He filed an application for appointing a person to inspect the disputed land. During continuance of the order of injunction, plaintiffs filed an application for punishing defendant No. 1 for violating the order of injunction which is pending consideration. Plaintiffs filed an application for a direction of the trial court to the police to implement the order of injunction. Tri...
Rabindra Kumar Mahalick Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT29; 1989CriLJ2020
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The petitioner's conviction under Section 408, I.P.C. and sentence to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months more having been confirmed in appeal he has preferred this revision. The facts of the prosecution case briefly narrated are that during the period from 17-5-76 to 26-6-76 the petitioner was working as a Clerk-B in the office of the S.D.O. (Electrical), Jharsuguda and was In charge of receiving cash collections from the bill collectors, but had not deposited an amount of Rs. 20,262.51 collected during the period and hence faced the charge for which he stood trial.2. The sole contention raised by Mr. B. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailing the conviction is that on the facts adduced in evidence by the prosecution itself, no misappropriation against the petitioner had been made out and hence his conviction has to be set aside.3. The F.I.R. against the petitioner was lodged by the S....
Shyambai Patel Vs. Sauki Patel
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT414; I(1990)DMC143
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Wife is the petitioner in this revision against an order refusing maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. Opposite party has not disputed that the petitioner in his wife.2. Basis of the claim of the petitioner is that she was ill-treated and was driven out from the house of the opposite party since she did not give birth to a child and opposite party has, married again. Opposite party . objected to the claim of the petitioner alleging that she did not pull on well with his mother, unmarried sister and brother's wife, created trouble in cooking in the joint mess and she pressed opposite party to get separated from the joint family to which opposite party refused as he happed to be the eldest son and two younger brothers and sister were yet to be married and settled. In such circumstances, petitioner being dissatisfied with the opposite party left his house voluntarily and claimed that she -would come back only when opposite party gets separated from his parents.3. P...
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India Vs. Jayashankar Mund a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT426; 1989CriLJ1578
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, on 6-9-1984 setting aside the order of cognizance of an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) dt. 14-12-1983 and discharging the opposite parties on dismissal of the complaint petition.2. A few facts have to be narrated in order to appreciate the contentions raised in this case. The petitioner, an officer of the Food Corporation of India at Titlagarh, lodged FIR at the Vigilance Police Station, Berhampur, on 3-3-1974 stating therein that the opposite parties belonging to Kalahandi district were partners of a firm named and styled as M/s. J.S.B.B. Mund with headquarters at Thelokomunda and carried on business in paddy and rice and were rice, mill owners. They entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India to purchase paddy, mill the same and supply rice for the kharif year 1971-72. According to the terms of the agreeme...
Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT601; 1989(42)ELT552(Ori)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, levy of duty on Electricity under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Section 36 of Finance Act 1978 is assailed by the petitioner, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913.2. Petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of paper and paper board, for which it has a factory at Brajarajnagar. It has also a plant to manufacture Caustic Soda which is required to be used for the production of paper. Electricity is necessary for the purpose of running the factories. For that purpose, petitioner has a power plant to generate electricity. It also gets supply of electricity from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on payment of charges.3. After the Act was amended in 1978, providing for levy of duty on electricity by including item 11E to the first schedule, the Board demanded additional amount fr...
Pramoda Chandra Panda Vs. Ajaya Kumar Sahoo and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori260; 67(1989)CLT761
ORDERP.C. Misra, J.1. Notice in the matter of admission was issued to the opposite parties. Pursuant to the said notice, the opposite parties entered appearance. During the course of hearing at the stage of admission, learned counsel for both parties requested for disposal of the revision at that stage for which the matter was heard at length.2. The judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 6/87 pending in the court of Additional Munsif, Jajpur Road is the petitioner in this revision. The petitioner Judgment debtor filed an application for stay of the execution case under Order 21, Rule 29, CP.C read with Sections 10 and 151, CP.C., which having been rejected by the learned Munsif he has come up with this revision challenging the legality of the said order.3. The facts relevant for the purposes of this revision may be briefly stated as follows: Admittedly the present petitioner was a tenant under the decree holder opposite parties and the latter filed Title Suit No. 82/83 in the court of M...
Shri Laxmi Trading Co. and anr. Vs. the Additional District Magistrate ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ659
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The order of confiscation passed by the Collector (opposite party 1) and the order of the State Government (opposite party 2) affirming the said order in appeal are being impugned in this writ application by the petitioners. Petitioner 1 is admittedly a dealer of foodgrains carrying on its business in Rourkela and petitioner No. 2 is a partner of petitioner 1-firm.2. The Inspector of Supplies conducted a raid on the business premises of the petitioner 1 on 26-8-1987 and found that the petitioner was in possession of 300.60 quintals of edible oils and 1469.53 quintals of pulses and edible oilseeds. The Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Rourkela, accordingly submitted a report to the Collector pointing out the fact that the petitioner, having been in possession in excess of the permissible limit of edible oils and edible oilseeds as provided under the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Order'),...
Sk. Abdul Hamid and anr. Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori255; 67(1989)CLT659
K.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged Annexures 1 and 2, notifications under Sections 4(1) and 5A read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Facts. The petitioners are owners of Ac. 0.065 decimals of land appertaining to several plots situate in mauja Sankarpur of Bhadrak town. It became necessary for the Notified Area Council of Bhadrak (for short 'N.A.C.') for excavation of public drain for passage of excess rain water from certain areas within Bhadrak for which purpose it was necessary to acquire two acres of land. Accordingly, a letter (Annexure D) dt. 29-8-1986 was addressed by the Executive Officer, Bhadrak N.A.C., to the Land Acquisition Officer, Balasore, along with a sketch map. Resolutions to the same effect were also passed by Annexure 4 dt. 23-2-1987 as well as Annexure C dt. 30-7-1985. As a result of the communication referred to above (Annexure D), the State Government issued notific...
Rajendra Prasad Jena and ors. Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board, Repr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT525; (1993)IIILLJ724Ori
L. Rath, J. 1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of similar facts and involve common questions of law and are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners seek to challenge their retrenchment from the Orissa State Electricity Board effected by an order in Anncxure-1. The order passed on 19-7-1983 shows the services of the petitioners being terminated as being no longer required with effect from 1-8-1983. The orders were forwarded to the petitioners on 25-7-1983.2. Mr. M.R. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners has, in assailing the orders, urged two contentions, namely, such retrenchment being violative of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also of Section 25N of the same Act. So far as the second submission is concerned, even though there is no dispute about the fact that Section 25N of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the Orissa State Electricity Board by virtue of Secti...
Puri Hotel Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC43(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Dealer is the petitioner in these three applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the notice under Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.2. Petitioner claims to be carrying on business of a residential hotel and claims that it is not liable to be assessed to tax under the Act. Counter-affidavit has been filed assailing the legal submissions of the petitioner.3. Whether the petitioner would be liable tinder the Act would depend upon the nature of business carried on by it which would have to be found on facts and circumstances to be determined for which notice under Section 12(5) of the Act has been issued. Legal question having been examined in the decision of this Court reported in [1988] 70 STC 153 (Piplani Sweets v. Sales Tax Officer), the Sales Tax Officer is now to enquire into the facts after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file his return, submit objection and explain the materials collected.4. In view of the afo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »