Orissa Court April 1989 Judgments
Smt. Dev Kunver Bai Pandya Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori1; 68(1989)CLT218
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. This writ application is directed against the revisional order of the Central Government dated 20-10-1978, annexed as Annexure-8, and for issue of a writ of mandamus to the State of Orissa (opposite party No. 1) to consider the question of renewal of the petitioner's lease in accordance with law.2. Petitioner's case, briefly stated, is that her husband had obtained a mining lease from the ruler of Bonai for extracting manganese in villages Gonua and Mundajora over an area of 438.47 acres under Annexure-1 dated 30-9-1943 for a period of thirty years. On 12-1-1959, the Controller of Mining Leases passed an order reducing the period of lease from 30 to 20 years and thereafter illegally took over possession of the mines on 23-8-1971. The order of taking over possession was challenged in this Court in O.J.C. No. 303 of 1972 and by judgment dated 28-2-1973, annexed as annexure-2, this Court quashed the order of the Controller of Mining Leases and directed that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Rahaman Bhai Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ori233; 69(1990)CLT351
H.L. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is application by a Forest Contractor for rescinding the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division (O.P. 2) on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the solitary question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the principle of natural justice is to be expanded in all cases as a matter of routine and in the absence of following that principle, the impugned order (Annexure 5) can be held to be vitiated in law.2. In pursuance of the second supplementary auction sale notice for the years 1980-81, the working coupe S.W.C. XIX Lot No. (ii) Divisional Lot No. 189 of 1980-81 in Padampur Range in Gandhamardan Block was put to auction by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar on 26-2-1981. The petitioner offered Rs. 3,69,000/- and was declared to be the highest bidder. He deposited a sum of Rs. 36,900/-, being 10% of the bid money, on the same day according to the terms of the sale notice (Annexure ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Ghosh Vs. Additional Commissioner and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC145(Orissa)
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. A dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whose certificate of registration has been refused, is the petitioner in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. On 27th February, 1981, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of registration certificate of the year 1981-82. The Sales Tax Officer found that the petitioner, a registered dealer has not filed returns for quarters ending June, September and December, 1980. He issued notice on 8th June, 1981 (annexure-1), for refusing renewal of registration for 1981-82 giving opportunity to the petitioner to file the returns on or before 12th June, 1981, paying the admitted tax to avoid such rejection. The petitioner not having filed the returns and not having paid the admitted tax, the Sales Tax Officer refused renewal of the certificate of registration for the year 1981-82 by order dated 10th July, 1981 (annexure-2). The petitioner assailed t...
Tag this Judgment!Badan Prasad Jaswal Vs. Bira Khamari and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori32; 68(1989)CLT407
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. A report of the civil court Commissioner deputed to find out whether Schedule-A land of the plaint schedule is a part of Major Settlement plots Nos. 448 and 449 having been accepted, the plaintiff has preferred this revision.2. Mr. S. K. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Munsif urging of his having failed to notice the fundamental mistakes committed by the Commissioner in measuring the land. It is his submission that since the very report of the Commissioner shows that he has not taken the measurement from any fixed point and taken such measurements from two imaginary points set up by him, the report should have been held to be not of any worth and should have been discarded. A reference to the report shows the Commissioner to have stated that there was no fixed point near the disputed plot and the fixed point available near the tri-junction of plots Nos. 481, 482 and 493 though not far away from the disputed pl...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Pradhan Vs. Pabaneswar Subudhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 68(1989)CLT516; 1989CriLJ2016
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. The petitioner as the informant in C.R. Case No. 306 of 1988 in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri has moved this application for cancellation of bail of the opposite parties urging the same to have been improperly allowed.2. The short facts constituting the prosecution case are that on 9-3-1988 at about 9.30 p.m. the informant was performing 'Trinath Mala' in the Village along with some villagers when opposite party 2 came there along with one Dusasan Swain and abused them. The opposite party 1 instigated them to commit murder of the informant and others and on his instruction opposite party 2 threw a bomb at them. Immediately thereafter one Dwija Swain went over to the roof of a thatched house and threw a bomb as a result of which a girl named Chanchala Pradhan died on the spot. Some others were also injured due to pelting of stones. While the opposite parties and some others were arrested, Dwija Swain, due to whose throwing of the bomb Chanc...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Reetanjali Pati and ors. Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori90
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners, students of Vysanagar High School, Jaipur Road who appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1981 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (opp. party No. 1) filed this writ application praying to quash the revised marks as shown in Annexures 3(b), 4(b) and 6 and to direct the opp. parties to restore the original marks as per Annexures 3(a), 4(a) and 5 with appropriate division and rank. The Headmaster of the School is the other opp. party (No. 2) in the writ application.2. The facts leading to the controversy may be shortly stated thus :The petitioners were regular students of the Vyasanagar High School and appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1981 through Hingula High School Centre, Sankhachila. Their results were published by the Board. Thereafter the Headmaster issued to them school leaving certificates and mark-sheets and on the strength of the said documents the petitioners applied for adm...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Budharaja Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori6; 68(1989)CLT509
D.P. Mohapatra, J.In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 6-5-81 of the State Government in the Mining and Geology Department as per Annexure 6 whereby his mining lease was cancelled. The State of Orissa through the Secretary, Mining and Geology Department, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Mines) and Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. are impleaded as opposite parties in the petition.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts as set out in the writ application are as follows :--The petitioner made an application on 12-5-1969 for grant of a mining lease for graphite over an area of 1877.18 acres in village Ambaguda in the district of Koraput. The State Govt. in the Mining and Geology Department after processing the application passed the order 15-11-76 and decided to grant mining lease to the petitioner over an area of 1592.34 acres as per Annexure 3. Thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Jagamohan Garnaik and ors. Vs. Sankar Samal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori124; 68(1989)CLT123
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. This second appeal was referred by our learned brother Hon'ble L. Rath, J., to a larger Bench as he did not agree with the decision of our learned brother Hon'ble S. C. Mohpatra, J. in Second Appeal No. 312 of 1980 decided on 8-l-1988 (reported in 1988) (1) Orissa LR 176) on the question whether in a suit filed by the plaintiff based on title for declaration on title and possession on the admitted position that he has been dispossessed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the dispossession in question is within twelve years from the date of institution of suit. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as for the respondents agree that only the legal question may be answered by the Division Bench and the matter may be referred back to the learned single Judge for disposal of the second appeal since the second appeal has been heard by our learned brother Hon'ble L. Rath, J., in part. In view of this instead of disposing of the second a...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Ramchandra Agrawala and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ori116
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Two important questions of law arise in this revision for our consideration, namely:--(i) An interpretation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act as to what is the true meaning of the expression '....the arbitration agreement does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied'; and(ii) Whether even though such an intention was there in the original agreement, by subsequent conduct and consent of parties, the said intention can be said to have been varied and the parties agreed to supply the vacancy in the event of the contingencies arising under Section 8(1)(b). The matter has been referred to a Division Bench in view of the divergence of views expressed by the learned Single Judges of this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India, petitioner No. 1, and the agreement contained an arbitration clause. The said arbitration Clause 15 of the agreement so far ...
Tag this Judgment!Pritish Nandy and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: 66(1988)CLT148; 1989CriLJ2210
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. This petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. raises an important question regarding the true meaning of the proviso to Section 313(1), Cr. P.C. as to whether while the Court exercises power thereunder to dispense with examination of the accused under Section 313( l)(b), it is obligatory on its part to question the counsel representing the accused instead. The petitioners who are respectively the Editor and the Special Correspondent of the Illustrated Weekly of India are facing trial under Section 292, I.P.C. for having published an article therein captioned 'Shocking : The Strange Escapades Of J. B. Patnaik.' In the trial Court the personal attendance of the petitioners was dispensed with under Section 205, Cr. P.C. on their application. After the close of evidence of the prosecution, the case was posted to 15-2-89 for accused statement and defence evidence on which date an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners requesting adjournment. The application was al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »