Orissa Court January 1990 Judgments
Gopal Bariha Vs. Satyanarayan Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori131; [1992]194ITR469(Orissa)
A.K. Padhi, J. 1. The petitioner, a member of Scheduled Tribe assails the order of the revisional authority arising out of a proceeding under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as 'the O.L.R. Act').2. The opposite party No. 2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe had purchased the disputed property comprising of an area of A.O. 22 dec. of land in village Padhel on 25-8-1975. According to the petitioner, though the sale deed stands in the name of opposite party No. 2, the real transferee was opposite party No. 1 who belongs to a non-Scheduled Tribe. On these allegations a petition was filed under Section 23 of the O.L.R. Act praying for restoration of possession.3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and according to them opposite party No. 2 was the real purchaser and the transfer beingfrom one Scheduled Tribe member to another Scheduled Tribe member, no permission was required before such transfer.4. On enquiry, the learned Revenue Officer held that the real tr...
Tag this Judgment!S.L. Narasing Rao and ors. Vs. Gopaljee Mahaprabhu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ori177
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The common challenge raised in both these writ applications is to the order passed by the appellate authority, the Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam Chatrapur on 21-4-80 (Annexure 6) in O.E.A. Appeal Nos. 33/78, 35/78, 36/78 and 37; 78. The cases are interlinked with each other both on facts as well as on questions of law. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.Though a large mass of facts have been stated in the pleadings and were reiterated by the learned counsel for the parties at the hearing of the case, a substantial part of it, in our view, is unnecessary for disposal of the cases. The facts relevant for the present purpose may be stated thus: The controversy raised in the writ applications relates to A.8.40 decimals of land under survey No. 369 of Bhapur covered by T.D. No. 2904 which stood recorded in the Revenue records in the name of the deity Sri Sri Gopalji Mahaprabhu Bije...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Saligram Khirwal Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori211; 69(1990)CLT565
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether an existing lessee for a major mineral can claim preferential treatment in the matter of grant of permission or lease for quarrying of a minor mineral found within the area leased to him.2. The petitioner Shri Saligram Khirwal was granted lease over an area of 482.97 acres for carrying on mining operation for the major minerals. Toffa Lime Shell, Quartzite and Pyrophyllite valid for 10 years from 19-3-1981. Proper agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the State Govt. through the Collector of the district. The competent authority granted working permission to the petitioner on 17-1-83 to carry on mining operations over an area of 8.75 acres. In the meanwhile by the impugned order passed on 17-9-88 the Mining Officer, Keanjhar (opp. party No. 3) has granted lease in favour of opp. party No. 5 Shri S.K. Jhalkarnayan for carrying on quarrying operations for Calc-Toffa, a minor mineral, ov...
Tag this Judgment!Chakradhar Das and ors. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Behara and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT249; 1992CriLJ906
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Prayer of the petitioners to drop the proceeding against them under Section 107, Cr. P.C., having been rejected by the learned Executive Magistrate, this revision has been filed.2. Proceeding against the petitioners was initiated on a police report on 26-12-1987. After petitioners appeared on 30-1-1988, inquiry commenced and one witness was examined on 4-7-1988 on which day petitioners were called upon to furnish interim bond. Petitioners filed a revision against the said order before learned Sessions Judge who directed stay of further proceedings on 1-11-1988. Such an order was recorded in the order sheet of the proceeding on 3-1-1989. Prior to it on 21-12-1988 order under Section 116(6) Cr. P.C. was passed to continue the proceeding. Record of the proceeding was sent to Sessions Court and after dismissal of the revision, it was returned back. Order in revision was challenged in this Court and the record was again sent as per order dated 15-4-1989 of this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!BipIn Kumar Nanda Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]78STC364(Orissa)
L. Rath and V. Gopalaswamy, JJ.1. The sole relief claimed by the petitioner is for a direction to the opposite party 2 to adjust the amount paid by him as 'sales tax' to the Assistant Soil Conservation Officers while purchasing the quantities of cashewnuts from them towards the purchase tax payable by him on such purchases and to quash the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal in appeal deciding against the petitioner on the issue. The facts briefly stated arc that the petitioner, who is a dealer in cashewnuts amongst other things, purchased quantities of cashewnuts during the financial year, 1983-84. The Assistant Soil Conservation Officers from whom he purchased the cashewnuts realised different amounts totalling a sum of Rs. 12,250.22 from him towards sales tax. There is no dispute, and it is a matter of fact which also appears from the appellate order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, that the Assistant Soil Conservation Officers have already deposited the amounts so collected from the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Tripureshwar Mallik Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-16-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ori228
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The short question that arises for adjudication in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection under the principle of estoppel against the action of the opposite parties.2. The petitioner filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the decision of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa (opposite party No. 1) communicated to him in the letter dated 14-9-1989 of the Principal of the Cuttack College (Annexure 4) and to direct the opposite parties to accept the position that he had passed the Annual Higher Secondary Examination of 1989 as a compartmental candidate.3. The facts regarding which there is no dispute are stated hereunder :The petitioner, a student of the Cuttack College, appeared as a regular collegiate candidate at the Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 1988 with Roll No. 116 C 096; he failed in the said examination securing 43 marks in English and 53 marks in Economics but secured pass m...
Tag this Judgment!Manas Kumar Dutta and anr Vs. Aloka Dutta
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: II(1990)DMC115
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Criminal Misc. Case may be briefly stated as follows :The opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner No. 1 (son of petitioner No. 2) and they were married on 19-11-1985 and they lived a married life till 31-5-1987. Subsequently serious differences arose between them and ultimately the opposite party filed O.S. No. 112 of 1987 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of divorce and also prayed for a direction to be given to the petitioner No. 1 to return to her the gold and silver articles and other valuables belonging to her as mentioned in plaint schedules A and B. The petitioner No. 1 filed Matrimonial Suit No. 219 of 1987 against the wife (the present opposite party) for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of the District Judge, Howrah. The opposite party filed criminal case ICC No. 89 of 1988 against the petitioners before the S.D.J.M....
Tag this Judgment!Manas Kumar Dutta and anr. Vs. Aloka Dutta
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ288
ORDERV. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Criminal Misc. Case may be briefly stated as follows:The opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner No. 1 (son of petitioner No. 2) and they were married on 19-11-1985 and they lived a married life till 31-5-1987. Subsequently serious differences arose between them and ultimately the opposite party filed O.S. No. 112 of 1987 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of divorce and also prayed for a direction to be given to the petitioner No. 1 to return to her the gold and silver articles and other valuables belonging to her as mentioned in plaint schedules A and B. The petitioner No. 1 filed Matrimonial Suit No. 219 of 1987 against the wife (the present opposite party) for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of the District Judge, Howrah. The opposite party filed criminal case I.C.C. No. 89 of 1988 against the petitioners before the S...
Tag this Judgment!Dataram Jagannath Firm H.U.F. Vs. M.S. Jagi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ori160
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Judgment-debtor is the petitioner in this Civil Revision under Section 115, C.P.C. 2. Judgment-debtor filed a suit for money. Decree-holder filed a cross claim for accounts. Suit was disposed of in the year 1964 decreeing the claim of the judgment-debtor and passing a preliminary decree for accounts. Final decree was passed in 1977. On the basis of the final decree, decree-holder filed Execution case which was registered as Execution Case No. 37 of 1979 which was subsequently numbered as Execution Case for realisation of the decretal dues in the decree in his favour. On 1-8-1980 petitioner filed an application for adjustment of the dues against him with the decretal amount for which he filed the execution application. Decree-holder filed objection to such a petition. Since the execution case filed by the petitioner was posted to 24-9-1980, this application was also posted to the said date. When the case was adjourned from one date to the other, Execution case...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Charan Satpathy Vs. Secretary, Orissa State Electricity Board a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR109
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner an U. D. Clerk under the Orissa State Electricity Board has come before this Court seeking the reliefs of maintaing his senbrity in acordance with his date of appointment as. L. D Clerk on 3-7 1971 and quashing of the promotion of opp. party 4 alleged to have been made on the basis of wrong determination of seniority. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 3-3-1971 as L.D. Clerk in the office of the Superintending, Engineer, Berhampur, but wss transferred to the Cuttack Electrical Circle on 29-12-1973. A gradition list was published in 1978 (Annoxure-3) wherein the petitioner was shown at Serial 67 with his date of appointment as 3-7-1971 and also showing the very same date from which his seniority was counted. Subsequently, though the O. P. 4 was junior to him having been appointed on 23-10-1971 yet he was promoted on 16-3-1982 as U D. Clerk superseding him. Being aggrieved by such supersession the petitioner filed the present petition...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »