Orissa Court March 1989 Judgments
Narendra Kumar Das Vs. Upendra Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori196; 68(1989)CLT267
ORDERA.K. Padhi, J.1. The petitioner in this revision challenges the order dated 22-12-1984 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jaipur refusing to recall the order dated 10-3-1981.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The petitioner and opposite parties, who are co-sharers, agreed on 8-1-1978 to partition the suit properties by private arbitrators. Misc. Case No. 56 of 1979 was filed for extension of time. On 24-9-1979, the agreement was filed in the Court and on 17-11-1979 the Court extended the time for filing the arbitration award. On 2-1-1980 the award was submitted to Court. Title Suit No. 20 of 1980 was registered to make the award a rule of the Court on 18-2-1980. In the meantime on 15-2-1980 the petitioner filed an objection challenging the award. Petitioner was arrayed as the plaintiff and the other co-sharers were arryed as defendants. On 27-6-1980, the mother guardian, defendant No. 7, sought permission to represent and conduct the case on behalf of the minor d...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Jhunjhunwala and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori219; 68(1989)CLT288
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioners whose lands have been notified for the purpose of acquisition under Section 4(1) as well as under Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have approached this Court for quashing of the said two notifications which have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 1/A respectively to the writ application.2. The Government in the Revenue Department had issued the notification (Annexure 1) dated 26th of March, 1984, notifying that 3.926 acres of land as described in the schedule was required for a public purpose namely 'Development of New Capital in Mouza Laxmisagar' and accordingly the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had been made. Along with the said notification, Government also in exercise of powers under Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act issued another notification on the same date i.e., on 26th March, 1984, directing that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall no...
Tag this Judgment!Kulamani Pradhan and anr. Vs. Srimanta Alias Sumanta Kumar Jena and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ213
L. Rath, J.1. The appellants in this appeal challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to them in respect of death of their five year old son who died instantaneously while pillion riding the bicycle of one Narahari Pradhan on being hit by the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. OSC 7879 belonging to the respondent No. 1. While the claim was made for Rs. 20,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/-as the compensation, half and half to the two appellants with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim application. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the appellants, has urged that the victim being aged five years at the time of the accident, would have lived much longer at least up to the age of seventy and would have rendered financial assistance to the parents of which the parents were deprived by the accident and hence they were entitled to higher compensation.2. Admittedly, appellant No. 1 is an agriculturist having five...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Gauda Vs. Khira Gauda and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori16
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this revision rejection of the petition under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C., filed by the defendant 1 to record compromise on the basis of an award made during pendency of the suit is assailed by defendant 1.2. Suit is for partition. Plaintiff as daughter of one of the deceased co-sharers filed the suit for partition. Defendant 1, brother of the deceased father of the plaintiffs contested the suit alleging that his brother died in the year 1934 and accordingly, plaintiffs have no right to succeed to the joint family property in the hands of their father. When evidence in the suit was recorded, plaintiffs filed an application on 18-8-1983 for recording adjustment of the suit on the basis of an award filed that day in Court by one of the Arbitrators Subudhi Swain. Defendant 1 objected to the petition assailing the award itself and claiming that the same being without permission of the Court is hit under Sections 21 to 29, Arbitration Act. It was stated that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Straw Products Limited and anr. Vs. Asstt. Collr. Ce and Cus. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC630(Orissa)
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs, Sambalpur Division, dated 1.6.1987 (Annexure-1) rejecting the application of the petitioner-company for refund, which it claims to be entitled pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 17.10.1985, reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 286 (Orissa) is under challenge in this writ application.2. The petitioner No. 1 is the Company engaged in the business of manufacture and production of paper. It also manufactures several varieties of paper including wrapping paper which falls under Tariff Item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The wrapping paper so manufactured by the Petitioner-Company is utilised in its factory for packing other varieties of paper and paper boards. From 1972 onwards the Central Excise authorities required the petitioner to pay the duty on the wrapping paper before using the same for wrapping other varieties of paper at...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Das and ors. Vs. Nirmal Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori248
ORDERL. Rath, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 5 to 8 are the petitioners in this revision against an order allowing amendment of the plaint. The plaintiffs who claimed to be co-sharers of the joint family property brought the suit for partition with the averment that different co-sharers were in separate possession according to convenience but the property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds as well as for the relief of preparation of a scheme in respect of the ancestral property of the family deity. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant 1, petitioner 1, is the son of Brundaban through his first wife whereas the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are his sons through his third wife. The present dispute is concerned with lot No. 1 of 'Ga' schedule property of the plaint in respect of which the plaint averments in para 11 were to the effect that the said property was purchased by Brundaban benami in the name of his first wife Prafulla Kumari and was all along possessed by him during h...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamala Panda Vs. Krishna Cloth Stores and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori229; 67(1989)CLT679
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The petitioner, defendant 2 in M.S. No. 56/87 filed by the opposite party 1, having failed in her attempt to get an order passed under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C. against her recalled, has preferred this revision.2. The facts in a nutshell are that opposite party No. 1 filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 41,255.45 together with interest against the petitioner and her husband, defendants 2 and I respectively, on the allegation that a retail cloth business was run by both the defendants and that they were taking cloths from the plaintiff on credit which they failed to liquidate. In the suit a petition was filed under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C. against opposite party 1 to attach the house of the petitioner and on 13-8-87 the learned Subordinate Judge passed order to issue notice against the defendants to show cause as to why the scheduled property as shown in the petition should not be attached before judgment. On 27-8-87 the postal A.D. showing the notice to have been refused...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Khatua Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1583
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Cuttack, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 466, 471 and 419 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) against him.2. Facts may be narrated in brief. One Abhiram Mohanty said to be a notorious dacoit was arrested and was in jail custody in connection with G.R. Case Nos. 1419 of 1981, and 73, 235 and 549 of 1982 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. He was granted bail and for the purpose of release, he was required to furnish bail bonds with two sureties for the bail amount subject to the satisfaction of the Court. The petitioner was one of the counsel appearing for Abhiram Mohanty in those cases. The person who was looking after the cases on his behalf arranged two sureties, one of whom was stated to be one Jadu Behera, son of Ratha Behera of village Palasia, P. S. Choudwar, district, Cuttack. Document s...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh Padhan Vs. Harabati Padhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT688; 1989CriLJ1661
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The sole question urged in this revision is whether an order disposing of a petition filed under Section 125, Cr. P.C. by the wife, in terms of compromise entered into between the parties to the effect that the husband, the wife and their sole offspring would remain together with the husband maintaining them and that if there is any infraction or negligence by the husband, or if he assaults the wife in the future, he would, by virtue of the terms of the compromise, pay maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to the wife and Rs. 50/- per month to the child is executable by the Magistrate under Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. Opposite party 1 and 2 had filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 28/82 before the S.D.J.M., Bargarh complaining of ill-treatment and refusal to maintain by the opposite party (petitioner herein) and claiming Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance in accordance with the terms of the compromise, but the petition was rejected as not maintainable holding that since the order...
Tag this Judgment!iswar Chandra Patra Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT685; 1989CriLJ2019
ORDERG.B. Patnaik, J.1. The informant is the petitioner assailing the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing that the sum of Rs. 2,005/- be paid to opposite party 2. It was alleged by the petitioner-informant that on the date of occurrence he had sold some land to P.W. 5 and received the consideration money and while coming by bus, the accused snatched away the said money and did not part with the same. On the basis of the said information, a case under Section 379, Penal Code, was registered and ultimately the. Magistrate acquitted the accused person. The plea of the accused was that it was true that the informant-petitioner sold the land and obtained the money, but he delivered it voluntarily to the accused in discharge of the prior loan which the informant had taken from the accused. The Magistrate though acquitted the accused yet did not accept his plea and ultimately directed that the money in question be paid to the informant-petitioner to whom the money admittedly belongs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »