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.
The Managing Director and anr. Vs. Natabar Mohanty and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori189
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether a co-operative society can be construed to be an authority controlled by the State Government within the ambit of Section 41A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was introduced by way of amendment by Orissa Act 3 of 1983, so that if a dispute arises where such society is a party to the dispute then the reference is to be made to the Arbitration Tribunal in accordance with the said provision of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (for short 'the Act').2. Opposite party No. 1 is a contractor and had entered into an agreement with the petitioners for construction of some factory buildings in the spinning mills of the petitioners at Tora in the district of Sambalpur. In respect of execution of the said work, dispute arose and opposite party No. 1 wanted that the matter should be referred to an arbitrator invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement. Petitioner No. 1 was of the view that the arbi...
Kasinath Mohapatra Vs. Annapurna Panda @ Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC335
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, refusing to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed against the petitioner and in favour of the opposite party.2. A few fact may be stated. The opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) against the petitioner on 6-1-1983 in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, alleging that while the latter was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Banta Police Station of Balasore district he married her in the month of Baishakh, 1970 according to the religious customs and thereafter they lived together and consummated the marriage. A daughter was also born of the wedlock on 15-6-1973. Some time later she came to her parent's house on a visit and as she could not return in time, the petitioner drove her out of the house. Since then she is living in her parent's house al...
Bijaya Kumar Ram Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT531; 1989CriLJ1613
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner was a dealer of grocery articles of Dharamsala Market of Keonjhar town. On 23-1-1980 at 12-30 P.M. the Food Inspector (P.W. 2) inspected the grocery shop and suspected that turmeric whole kept inside the shop was moth-eaten and unfit for human consumption. Accordingly, he purchased 600 grams of turmeric whole and after compliance with the. rules, the samples were kept in clean and dry bottles in equal parts and subsequently one of them was sent to the Public Analyst for opinion. The Public Analyst reported in his report (Ext. 4) to the effect that the sample of turmeric whole was damaged by insects and was adulterated in view of the provision of Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act. After receipt of the report, it was found that there was a prima facie case of food adulteration against th...
Binay Kumar Das Vs. Sunil Kumar Patra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori156
Agrawal, C.J. 1. The principal question that falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the appeal filed under Section 13 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') against the order of the House Rent Controller refusing to decide the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue was maintainable or not.2. The scope of Section 13 of the Act and its correct interpretation with respect to the maintainability of appeals were raised from time to time, and, in order to decide it authoritatively, O.J.C. No. 840 of 1981 was referred to a larger Bench. Accordingly, when this case was listed before a Division Bench, it was also ordered to be heard along with the aforesaid writ application. The question has been discussed in extenso in the judgment of that case, which has been delivered just now. The ratio of the decision in that case fully applies to this case also.3. The facts in brief : --The petitioner filed a case for eviction of O.P. 1 from the premises in ques...
Sagarmal Panch Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori158; 68(1989)CLT82
Agarwal, C.J. 1. This writ application, arising out of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri, acting as the appellate authority under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act'), by which he has allowed the appeal of the tenant against the order of rejection of his application for setting aside an ex parte order of eviction passed by the House Rent Controller, raises a question of construction of Section 13 of the Act, namely, as to whether the appellate authority was competent in law to entertain the appeal.2. Earlier, when this writ application was listed before a Division Bench of this Court, it referred the matter to a larger Bench to resolve some conflict between the observations made in different decisions of this Court, particularly in the case of Maganlal Sharma v. Smt. Maya Dutta, ILR (1979) 2 Cuttack 455 and Arun Sunder Das v. B. Subash Subudhi Rao, (1988) 65 Cut LT 169 Kandula Prabhakar Rao v. Tumulu Lakshmanamurty, (1987) 64 Cut LT 713 : (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›