Orissa Court February 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.
Madhuchhanda Padhi Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori209
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The controversy in this case relates to admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course in the three medical colleges in the State for the session 1988-89. The petitioner who appeared at the Entrance Examination seeking admission to the said course having been unsuccessful has filed this writ application praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to admit her into the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course or in the alternative to quash the result of the Entrance Examination and direct fresh examination to be held. The State of Orissa represented by the Secretary, Health Services, the Director of Health Services and Medical Education and the Convenor of M.B.B.S. Entrance Examination-cum-Principal, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla have been impleaded as opposite parties in the writ application.2. The facts stated in the writ application, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows :The petitioner had a brilliant academic career, passed the 10th class in the first divi...
Khadal Penthi Vs. Hulash Dei and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori137; 67(1989)CLT767
P.C. Misra, J.1. This revision a rises out of a suit filed by the present opposite parties 1 and 2 praying for recovery of properties worth Rs. 15,000/- from the defendants and for maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month for opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month for opposite party No. 2 from the present petitioner with other consequential reliefs. An application for interim maintenance was filed in the trial Court which was objected to by the present petitioner on the ground that there is no relationship of husband and wife between him and opposite party No. 1 and also for the reason that the Court would have no jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Court negatived both the contentions and allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 100/-and Rs. 50/- to opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively per month till the disposal of the suit. This revision was filed challenging the legality of the said order which on being placed before one of ...
Samir Snigdha Chandra Vs. Pranaya Bhusan Chandra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori185; 68(1989)CLT631
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 4 whose application for setting aside an ex parte decree has been dismissed by the trial Court.2. Although the appeal on the face of it is of a common nature, yet, on the facts, some intricate questions have fallen for consideration, namely,(1) Whether the trial Court could rely only on the service of summons by registered post for setting the appellant ex parte;(2) Whether notice of the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. or of the present appeal should also issue to the other defendants; and(3) Whether the decree could be set aside as a whole even when it happens to be in favour of some of the defendants.3. In order to answer the above questions, the facts of the case may be briefly noticed.The plaintiff-respondent 1 filed Title Suit No. 29 of 1981 for partition impleading the members of the family including the appellant as defendant 4. The suit was contested by defendant 1 only and the other defendants were set ex par...
Padmalaya Panda Vs. Masinath Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori102
P.C. Misra, J.1. This case has come before this Bench on being referred for resolving a conflict in some decisions of the learned single Judges of this Court with regard to the question whether after the order rejecting a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), which is appealable, an application under Section 151 of the Code for setting aside or recalling the order would be entertainable by the trial Court. The petitioner filed M.S. No. 54/83 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur which was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. for non-payment of deficit court-fee. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151, C.P.C. praying for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of the suit in M.J.C. No. 203/83 which was rejected as not maintainable. The plaintiff-petitioner has fifed this revision contending inter alia that the learned trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by refusing to ...
The State Vs. Gunchu Majhi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1838
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Acquittal of the respondent in respect of his prosecution under Section 47(b) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the subject matter of this appeal by the State under Section 378 Cr. P.C.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent was cultivating the hemp plants in his ban. On 10-9-1979 P.W. 4 and his staff went to the village on getting information and on search found 2375 hemp plants in the bari of the respondent which had grown to a height of abour 5'.3'. The same were uprooted and were seized. Plea of the defence is one of complete denial.3. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Seizure list was exhibited as Ext. I and a sample of the hemp plants seized was produced as a material object since by an earlier order of the Court the other hemp plants which were gradually decomposing were destroyed. Trial court disbelieved. P.Ws. 1 and 2 being outsiders to the village and deputed them as c...
Surajmal JaIn and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT596; 1989CriLJ1960
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners are owners of a video parlour in Umerkote of Koraput district. On 30-7-1988 the Officer-in-Charge of Umerkote Police Station raided the parlour and found that the petitioners were exhibiting a film named 'Kanwarlal' without having a licence for exhibition of the film which itself had not been certified for exhibition. Therefore, the V.C.R., the television, the screen and the other apparatus along with the film were seized and a first information was lodged against the petitioners on the allegations that they had violated the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Copy Right Act, 1957. The petitioners moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, Umerkote for release of the seized articles, but their prayer was refused Thereupon the learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore was moved in revision but by the impugned order he directed that the seized articles should be packed and sealed in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate and should be ha...
Srustidhar Mohanty Vs. the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori251
ORDERG.P. Patnaik, J. 1. The order of the Subordinate Judge dt. 29-9-84 rejecting the petitioner's prayer to remove the arbitrator is being challenged in this revision. The petitioner entered into an agreement with opposite party for running a canteen. Disputes having arisen between the parties, invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement, opposite party 2 was appointed as an arbitrator. The petitioner apprehended that he would not get fair dealing from the arbitrator and accordingly he filed an application for removal of the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. But that application was rejected by the Subordinate Judge against which the petitioner filed a revision in this Court which was numbered as C.A. No. 466/81. The Civil Revision was dismissed by this Court by order dt. 28-7-83 on the ground that though misconduct wasalleged against the arbitrator but the arbitrator had not been made a party. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application for removal of t...
Ajay Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-20-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2470
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In Criminal Misc. No.-378 of 1988, records of the lower court had been called for and Mr. Sahu submitted that records have not been sent back since I directed the matter to be listed six months after while releasing the accused-petitioner therein for bail for six ninths. In Misc. Case No. 240 of 1988, I directed for completion of the commitment proceeding early. On account of non-availability of record, the proceeding has not been completed. Let the records if available in Criminal Misc. No. 378 of 1988 be sent back immediately.2. Mr. Sahu submitted that one of the accused is absconding for which the commitment proceeding is not yet over. Sincelarge number of accused persons are in custody, committing court may consider to split-up the case against the absconding accused and proceed with the commitment proceeding against others unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the same is not possible.3. It is submitted that father of petitioner has expired in the ...
Ambika Prasad Mohanty and Etc. Vs. Orissa Engineering College and anr. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori173; 68(1989)CLT65
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Both the writ applications were taken up together for hearing at the points of law are the same. We propose to dispose of them by this judgment.2. In O.J.C. No. 2745 of 1988 Ambika Prasad Mohanty (a minor boy represented through his father) is the petitioner. He has stated that in pursuance to the prospectus issued by opp. party No. 1 (Orissa Engineering College) he applied for admission to 4 years B.Sc. Engineering Course in civil engineering for the academic session 1988-89. After interview, the petitioner was duly selected and intimated to take admission in the College. He deposited the requisite fees etc. of the College to the tune of Rs. 20,585.00 and was admitted to the College vide Annexures 1 and 4 which is not in dispute. After being admitted he received a letter of cancellationof his admission vide Annexure 2, dt. 16-8-1988. Annexure 2 reads as follows :-- 'On scrutiny it has now been detected that your application was earlier rejected for various defects not...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Netrananda Kandi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC640; [1991]71CompCas580(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The insurer of the vehicle, ORX No. 5067, is the appellant in an appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in a trekker, bearing registration No. ORX 5417, and while the said trekker had reached near village, Dhirapur, another trekker, bearing registration No. ORX 5067, came from the opposite direction and grazed against the right side of the trekker which was carrying the claimant-respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 who was occupying a seat on the right side sustained serious injuries and the femur bones on both of his legs were fractured. He was taken to the hospital for treatment and, finally he was shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Puri, where he remained as an indoor patient for three months. From Puri he was shifted for further treatment to clatpur. Notwithstanding the fact that all efforts were made, he was not fully cured. He the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »