Orissa Court March 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.
Bhagabat Prasad Das Vs. Haimabati Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori70; 68(1989)CLT444
P.C. Misra, J.1. Defendant 3 is the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Balasore in Original Suit No. 94 of 1971-1 in which the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal) prayed for partition of the properties described in Schedules 'Kha' and 'Ga' of the plaint.2. According to the genealogy given in the Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are members of the same family having a common ancestor. Defendants 4 to 10 are purchasers from different co-sharers. The genealogy as given in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint is extracted below for proper appreciation of the facts which are necessary for decision of this appeal. GENEALOGY Kusuma Dash Pujhari | _______________________|_______________________ | | | | Dhruba Lokonath Baidyanath Janakiballava | | _______________________| ___________________________|____________________ | | | | | | Mohan Pakira Baishnab Bipra Umakanta Ramakanta | | D. 1 | | __________________ | | Tulasi ...
Gouri Shankar Misra and anr. Vs. Fakir Mohan Dash and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori201; 67(1989)CLT697
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff was the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for possession in respect of a house described inSchedule A of the plaint by evicting thedefendant there from and for any otherappropriate relief to which the plaintiff maybe entitled law and equity. During thependency this appeal, the plaintiff havingdied his legal representatives have beensubstituted.2. According to the plaint case, the defendant executed a registered agreement on 31-1-1968 where under on consideration of Rs. 20,300/- arranged to be paid by the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be put in possession of the house in question for a period of thirty years and during the said period of plaintiffs possession, the plaintiff would pay annual rent of Rs. 300/- and would have the liberty of constructing a double-storied building at his own cost. It was also agreed that possession of the house would be delivered to the plaintiff on 1-2-1968 and plaintiff would also have a right of renewal for a ...
Pramod Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1041
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The petitioner having been made to face a charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 407, I.P.C. has approached this Court for quashing of the charge and the cognizance taken against him under the sections, the same having been made without existence of any materials justifying either taking of cognizance or framing of the charge.2. It is the prosecution case, as disclosed from the charge-sheet, that the petitioner had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Government rice, wheat and sugar etc. all worth Rs. 2,19,379.93 and had contravened the order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, The order of the District Judge-cum-Special Judge on 7-9-88 shows the learned Judge to have been satisfied that there were materials to show the petitioner having violated Clauses 3 to 7 of the Storage Agent Licence issued in his favour dealing in essential commodities like rice, wheat and sugar. The petitioner has challenged such s...
Secretary Orissa State Housing Board Vs. Durgamadhab Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: 67(1989)CLT798; (1994)IIILLJ516Ori
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application by the Orissa State Housing Board against the award passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act directing payment of bonus to the N.M.R. employees working under the Board and quantifying their entitlements in Annexure-2. The award was passed in I.D. Misc. Case No. 67 of 1984.2. Two contentions were raised before the Labour Court as well as here, namely, the petitioner-Housing Board is not an establishment to which the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 was applicable and secondly, the N.M.R. employees serving under the Board were not entitled to bonus under the provisions of the Act.3. The first contention has no substance. Admittedly the Board is paying bonus to its other regular employees and is an establishment in public sector as defined in Clause (16) of Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act. The next question is if the N.M.R. employees were entitled to bonus under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 reads as under:'...
Lalit Amonatya Vs. Dimabati Amonatya
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC100
L. Rath, J.1. This revision arises out of an order passed under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 75/- per mouth to the opposite party.2. Mr. Dhal appearing for the petitioner urges solely regarding the quantum or maintenance payable to the opposite party. Admittedly, opposite party is the wife of the petitioner and the finding of the learned Magistrate that she is compelled to live separately because of the ill-treatment and neglect of the petition is not assailed. It is however the submission of Mr. Dhal that since the petitioner led evidence of his monthly income in the average to be Rs. 100/-, grant of maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month is highly excessive. Such a contention raised before the learned Magistrate has been negatived he being of the view that the quantum of maintenance is necessary to be fixed as is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the s...
Anant Ch. Sahu and ors. Vs. Dhruba Ch. Padhan (Dead) and Dhedia Padhan ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori33
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the court below was right in holding that the suit abated in its entirety for non-substitution of the legal representatives, of the deceased defendant No. 1. Dhruba Charan Padhan.2. Narsingh Sahu, father of petitioner No. 1 and Bhikari Chraran Sahu, petitioner No. 2 filed Title Suit No. 12 of 1973 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh impleading Dhruba Charan Padhan as defendant No. 1, and opposite parties 2 to 14 as defendants 2 to 14. The plaintiffs prayed for declaring their title over the suit land; to permanently injunct defendants 1 to 14 from entering upon the suit lands and from disturbing possession of the plaintiff over the same.The gist of the plaintiffs' case set out in the plaint is that Khata Nos. 1 and 199 of village Gopinathpur initially belonged to two brothers, Raghu Sahu and Madhu Sahu, who were in separa...
Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC30
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, a manufacturer of paper, and petitioner No. 2, its shareholder, have filed the writ application with the prayer to direct the opposite parties to approve the revised price list submitted by the petitioner-company and to complete and finalise the assessment on the said revised monthly return in Form R.T. 12 by levying duty on manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit after excluding the post-manufacturing cost and expenses and to refund the duties paid by the petitioner on a mistaken notion. It has further been prayed that let it be declared that Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, purports to levy duty only on the cost of manufacturing and not on any post-manufacturing cost.2. The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is that as a licensed manufacturer of paper, the petitioner-company was paying the duty on the goods prior to 1975 with reference to the weight of the goods which was the prevalent rule in the field. Section 4 of the Cen...
Madhaba Chandra Sahu Vs. Bikartan Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT117; 1989CriLJ2403
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Complainant is the petitioner against an order refusing his application for directing the accused persons to appear for identification by P.W. 3.2. Case of the complainant is that opposite party 3 was a candidate for election as Ward-member of Jhinkiria Gram Panchayat. Opposite party 1 was a supporter of opposite party 3 and was canvassing for him. Complainant was canvassing against opposite party 3 being supporter of the rival candidate. Opposite party 1 had earlier requested complaint to sell a piece of land to him. Complainant not having agreed to the same, opposite party 1 bore a grudge against him. In the background, on 7-2-85, all the opposite parties-accused armed with weapons like crow-bar, katari, sickle, kodala, lathi came in a body forming unlawful assembly and cut the green fance and various trees which were on the ridge. They removed those trees. When the complainant challenged their illegal action, opposite party 1 claimed that he would forcibly ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Y. Ramadevi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC92; 68(1989)CLT251
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Insurer is the appellant in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')-2. On 16.9.1984, ORG 8735, a tanker belonging to respondent No. 2, was involved in an accident resulting in the death of husband of claimant No. 1 who received fatal injuries. Claiming the deceased to the driver of the vehicle employed by respondent No. 2, claimant filed an application in form 'G' of the Rules made under the Act before the Commissioner under the Act at Berhampur. In item 3 of the form of application, it was stated as follows:(3) The monthly income of the deceased amounts to Rs. 600/-.3. This was received by the Commissioner on 19.3.1985. Along with the proforma application another application was filed where the claimant stated in paragraph 5 that at the time of death, the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 600/- besides daily batta. Petitioner calculated the compensation amount as Rs. 48,398.40 as per Se...
Mohd. Habibullah Ansari Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-01-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC527; 1990ACJ79; 68(1989)CLT343
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner has approached this court assailing his conviction under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and sentence of R.I. for six months also confirmed in appeal. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 10.11.1980 at 3 p.m. the van of which the petitioner was the driver had failed to start due to some trouble in the engine and hence attempt was made to push-start it from the front as the vehicle was on a down gradient road. While the petitioner was at the steering, PW1 was pushing the vehicle from the front and one Bidya Naik was at the rear looking to the vehicle's back side. At that time some boys were playing in the verandah of one Sarat Chandra Tripathy whose son ran towards the vehicle and came under it meeting with instantaneous death. It is the prosecution version that the petitioner had failed to stop the vehicle in spite of the indication given to him by Bidya Naik for the same.2. Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has, in challenging the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›