Orissa Court December 1989 Judgments
Baikunthanath Jena Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-23-1989
Reported in: 69(1990)CLT440; 1990CriLJ2626
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner and pro forma opposite party No. 2 are accused in a case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the 'Act') and have challenged the order of cognizance dated 6-2-1985 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar.2. Prosecution case, which is a very unfortunate one, is narrated below. The marriage negotiation between Sanjukta, an educated young girl, with the petitioner who was serving as Judicial Magistrate at Bhubaneswar, was started by some negotiators in January, 1982. During negotiation, on behalf of the petitioner and pro forma opposite party No. 2 demand of dowry of cash of Rupees 35,000/- and costly articles, such as, television, H.M.T. watch, refrigerator, 15 Tolas of gold ornaments and a piece of land at Bhubaneswar, was made. The parents of Sanjukta willy-nilly agreed for giving the dowry and as a matter of fact, on 10-2-1982 at the time of Nirbandha ceremony, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was pa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Khemka Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Ori4
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by a land-owner who was adjudged to be a ceiling surplus holder without compliance of the procedure and the law and even though the higher authorities came to the conclusion that due procedure had not been followed and remanded the matter to the original authority and even though the original authority on enquiry has come to a finding that there has been no surplus, yet on account of certain intervening state of affairs like distribution of the ceiling surplus land in favour of opposite parties 3 to 29, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner asserts that he received a notice for the first time in May, 1976, purporting to be one under Section 47 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act for assessment of compensation payable in respect of Ac. 11-47-5 kadies of land. It was stated in the said notice that the State has taken possession of the surplus land on 1-4-1976. Along with the notice, a draft compensation assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Paradip Port Trust Vs. Notified Area Council, Paradip and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori145
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The notices issued by the Notified Area Council, Paradip (opposite party No. 1) under different provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act levying the demand which have been annexed as Annexure 5 series are sought to be quashed in this writ application filed at the instance of the Paradip Port Trust. In fact, under Annexure 5 series, levy has been made towards holding tax on the buildings of the petitioner situated within the Notified Area Council, The main plank of the petitioner's argument is that the property in question belongs to the Union of India and, therefore, exempted from all taxes imposed by either the State or any authority within the State, under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India. The stand of the Notified Area Council, on the other hand, is that the property which was the property of the Union at one point of time vests fully upon the Paradip Port Trust and the Union no longer remains the owner of the property and, therefore, the exemption provid...
Tag this Judgment!Surendranath Jena Vs. Presiding Officer, State Co-operative Tribunal a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori204
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner who was elected as the President of the Kadebaranga Service Co-operative Society (opp. party No. 5) (for short 'the Society') filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 21-11-86 (Annexure 3) of the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhadrak Circle (opp. party No. 2) holding that the petitioner was disqualified to be elected as a member of the Committee and the order dated 17-7-89 (Annexure 5) of the Member, Co-operative Tribunal confirming the said order of the Asstt. Registrar.2. The petitioner and opp. party No. 3 Purna Chandra Sahu filed nominations for election of a member to the Committee of the Society. The nominations were filed on 27-1-86, scrutiny of nomination papers was held on 1-2-86 and the election was held on 12-2-86. The petitioner having polled larger number of votes was declared to be elected. Subsequently he became the President of the Society. On the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Oil India Mazdoor Union and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: 69(1990)CLT417; (1992)ILLJ414Ori
1. A. Pasayat, J.:-This writ application has been filed by a registered Trade Union through its functionaries espousing cause of 51 of its members, with a prayer for declaring the termination of their employment to be illegal, for a direction to the concerned employer, Oil India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') to regularise their services and to issue necessary directions to the Central Government to appropriately deal with the dispute that has arisen between the employer and the workmen in question. Though a lot of factual averments and contentions were raised, for the purpose of adjudication of this writ application, we feel it necessary to deal with those in great details.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the undisputed position is that 123 workers were engaged by licensed and authorised contractors for rendering services to the employer in its Bay Exploration Project in Orissa and the services were terminated. Later on, on the basis of a memorandum of settlement arri...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Muzafar HossaIn Khan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1024
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed an offence under Section 307, I.P.C., petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C.2. Petitioner is a member of the political party which is popularly known as 'Congress-I'. For two terms he has been elected as a member of the State Legislative Assembly from one of the Assembly Constituencies of Bolangir District and is now a Minister of State in the Ministry formed by the leader of Congress-I Legislative Party. During the election to the 9th Loksabha for which in Parliamentary Constituency of Bolangir polling was held on 22-11-1989 from 7 am. to 4 p.m. near about 1 p.m., petitioner reached (Durgapali village at a distance of 16 kilometres from Bolangir Town, the district Headquarters in a car accompanied by his official gunman armed with a pistol and ammunitions. Some of his party followers also moved with him in another vehicle, a jeep. After petitioner arrived, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Srikrishna Cinema Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-04-1989
Reported in: 69(1990)CLT648; [1990]78STC475(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The levy of penalty for default in payment of show tax under the provisions of the Orissa Entertainments Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in this writ application.2. The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is that he was the owner of a cinema hall in Puri Town and in accordance with law he was paying show tax at the rate of Rs. 10 per show. An Ordinance was promulgated with effect from January 20, 1984, enhancing the show tax from Rs. 10 to Rs. 25 per show and as it was felt to be quite harsh and burdensome, the Eastern India Motion Pictures Association moved the State Government. Ultimately the State Government reduced the show tax again to Rs. 10 with effect from September 17, 1985 and thus for the period January 20, 1984 to December 31, 1984, the petitioner was bound to pay at the rate of Rs. 25 per show. The total amount thus calculated works out to Rs. 23,800. The petitioner on the basis of calculation at the rate of Rs. 10 ...
Tag this Judgment!Parbati Vs. Duryodhan Samantaray
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori184
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff filed the suit asserting that he is the adopted son of defendant's father. Defendant contested the relationship and after trial, suit was dismissed against which plaintiff preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, plaintiff filed an application for admitting some documents as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. claiming that they are certified copies and public documents which contained admissions of the defendant before the Consolidation Authorities with regard to the relationship. It was stated that appellant could not produce the documents in the trial court due to shifting of the office of the Consolidation and Settlement Authorities. However, along with the application, no document was filed. Defendant-respondent objected to the acceptance of any additional evidence. Appellate court passed an order that the application would be considered at the time of hearing. Appeal was beared and was posted to 19-1-1989 for judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Susil Sanganeria Vs. Food Inspector, Cuttack Municipality
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1075
ORDERJ. Das, J.1. This criminal revision arises put of the order dated 24-7-1989 passed by Sri J. J. Patra, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack in 2(c)CC Case No. 361 of 1988 directing to send the third sample bottle of the Mustard oil to the Director, Central Laboratory, for test.The revision is also directed to quash the prosecution on account of delay in production of the second and 3rd samples in Court in contravention of Section 13(2A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 29-3-88, the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality purchased sample Mustard oil from the petitioner for analysis. On 30-3-1988, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the report of the Public Analyst was received on 19-5-88. As the Mustard oil was found to be adulterated, prosecution Report was filed and cognizance was taken on 14-10-1988. On 31-10-88, the accused appeared through his advocate and filed a petition exercising ri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›