Orissa Court October 1990 Judgments
Gourahari Naik Vs. Addl. District Magistrate (O.L.R.) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT122; 1991(I)OLR78
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The petitioner who claims himself to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe being a 'Bhuyan' filed a case before opp. party No.. 2-oub-Divisioial Officer, Kaptipada, Mayurbhanj alleging that he had sold M-3-3-3-8 of land pertaining to Plot Nos. 331 and 341 of Khata No. 57 in mouza Barhadiha under registered sale deed No. 1470 dated 1-5-1970 to one Sambhu Mohanto since deceased, the father of the present Opp. party Nos. 3 to 5. Since no permission 'was taken from the competent authority for effecting the aforesaid transfer, he filed an application on 10-9-1976 for declaring the sale void and for restoration of the land to his possession.2. The said application was registered as Regulation-ll Case No. 874 of 1976 in the Court of the opp. party No. 2 (S. D. O., Kaptipadi) in which two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and 3 witnesses were examined on behalf of opp. party Nos. 3 to 5 which included opp. parties Nos. 3 and 5 and another attesting w...
Tag this Judgment!D. Laxman Reddy Vs. Narasingh Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR123
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. By order dated 16-2-1990 this Court directed to issue notice to the opposite parties on the question of admission. Pursuant to which the opposite parties have entered appearance and with the consent of the parties, the case was heard.2. In this civil revision the petitioner challenges the order dated 1-9-1989 of the learned Subordinate judge, Berhampur passed in T. S. No. 81 of 1987 rejecting the petition of the petitioner-plaintiff dated 29-8-1988 for amending the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, CP.C. The Court rejected the application of the petitioner for amendment on the ground that the pro- posed amendment would completely change the nature and character of the present suit. In the original plaint the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his title in respect of a suit; house on various grounds. While the suit was pending for hearing, it is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 5. have taken over possession of the house and in the process caused dam...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Vs. Nasim Khan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: II(1992)ACC696; 1992ACJ418; AIR1991Ori200
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Insurer is the appellant in these two appeals. One appeal is against theorder refusing to set aside the ex parte award and the other is against the ex parte awarditself.2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are the claimants. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, Respondent No. 3 is his widow and Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are the minor children. Their case is that on 17-7-1987 at about 8.30 p.m. while deceased was returning from Brundaban Talkies in his cycle, motor cycle bearing registration No. OAU 3709 belonging to respondent No. 7 caused accident with the deceased resulting in fatal injuries sustained by him. Deceased was treated in the Neuro Surgical Ward of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack till 25-7-1987 when he succumbed to the injuries. Originally, claim was for compensation of Rs. 90,000/- but the same has been amended and enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000/-.3. Respondent No. 1 denied the facts stated in the claim petition and his liability. However...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. NasiruddIn Vs. Dulari Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC403
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core question which falls for decision in this case is whether the proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is liable to be reopened in view of the provisions in the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (25 of 1986) 72. The factual background of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus: The petitioner is the husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of opposite parties 2 and 3. On the application filed by the opposite party No. 1 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Misc. Case No. 8,6 of 1985 was initiated in the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Judl. Magistrate, Bhadrak. In the said application the opposite party No. 1 for herself and on behalf of her two minor sons claimed maintenance from the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, opposite parties 2 and 3 are their children. The parents in-laws being dissatisfied with the dowry she brought with...
Tag this Judgment!NasiruddIn Vs. Dulari Bibi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2039; I(1992)DMC228
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core question which falls for decision in this case is whether the proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is liable to be re-opened in view of the provisions in the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (25 of 1986) ?2. The factual background of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus. The petitioner is the husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of opposit parties 2 and 3. On the application filed by the opposite party No. 1, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Misc. Case No. 86 of 1985 was initiated in the Court of the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak. In the said application the opposite party No. 1 for herself and on behalf of her two minor sons claimed maintenance from the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, opposite parties 2 and 3 are their children. The parents-in-laws being dissatisfied with the dowry she brought wi...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad Newaj Alli @ Nati Vs. Rasida Begum
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC319
V. Gopalaswamy, J. 1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 6-12-1986 of the S.P.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 127 of 1986, a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C., directing the present petitioner to pay Rs. 200/- per month to the present opposite party as interim maintenance from the date of the order. The parties are Muslims.2. The only point that arises for consideration and decision is whether the learned S.D.J.M. had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.3. The present opposite party Rasida Begum originally filed a petition under Section 125(1), Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 127 of 1986 claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month to which the present petitioner filed his counter on 25-8-1986 alleging that on 27-2-1986 he divorced the opposite party according to Muslim Law and for confirmation of that divorce he filed Title Suit No. 123 of 1986 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. While filing his o...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Madanbati Lath Vs. S.D.O. and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT390; 1991(I)OLR46
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application by the transferee seeking the quashing of the orders (vide Annexures-1, 2 and 4) passed by the original, appellate and revision authorities under the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 by way of judicial review.2. 19 decimals of land appertaining to Hamid Settlement Plot Nos. 21 and 22-under Khata No. 25 in village Ainthapalfi within the Sadar Police Station in the district of Sambaipur is the subject-matter of the dispute. Opp. party No. 4, a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, filed an application on 13-3-1966 before the Additional Tahsildar seeking permission to sell the property in dispute to the petitioner. That was sent to the R. 1. for enquiry and submission of report. The R. 1. raised no objection and submitted his report in September, 1966, Proclamation was issued on 7-1-1967 inviting objection. On 25-7-1967, the Additional Tahsildar submitted the file to the Sub-Divisiona! Officer recommending grant of permission. While the matter was...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.V. Rao Vs. State of Orissa Represented by Secretary, Education D ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR134
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. In response to advertisement and prospectus issued by the State of Orissa inviting applications from persons desirous of taking up the Post-graduate course in the specialities specified therein in one of the Government Medical Colleges, the petitioner who was serving as Medical Officer, Jawaharlal Institute of Post-graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry a Central Government institution, made an application for admission to the M. D. Course in T. B. and Chest Diseases. He qualified and was assigned to the V.S.S. Medical College, Burla affiliated to the Sambalpur University. He secured the M. D. degree in March, 1982. In September 1982, he was informed by the Government of India to his considerable dismay and anguish that the Post-graduate degree obtained by him was not a recognised degree. Hence, he was not entitled to the Post- graduate allowances. A copy of the letter issued by the Government of India has been filed as Annexure-3. The petitioner could ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sashikala Padhi Vs. Smt. Hiren Ghosh and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT197; 1991(I)OLR57
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The question that has been posed for answer in this appeal under the Letters Patent is: If an appeal from the judgment of a Single Judge passed in an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is competent having regard to Sub-section (2) of Section 104 of the Code.2. To appreciate the question involved, the barest outline need be given.Defendant No. 19 filed an appeal in this Court under Clause (d) of Rule 1 of Order 43 of the Code against an order passed by the trial Court rejecting her application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside of an ex pane decree passed against her and other defendants. This Court accepted the appeal, vacated the order of dismissal of the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 and allowed the same but left the matter to the trial Court to consider if on the facts and in the circumstances the decree should be set aside in its entirety or to the extent so far as that, related to defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Routray and anr. Vs. Certificate Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT334; 1991(I)OLR12
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The simple question that has cropped up its head in this case for answer is if the members of a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860):are individually liable and can be sued for liability of the society.2. Messrs Cuttack Motor, Association was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for short 'the Act', with effect from 8-1-1972. This aspect re not in dispute in view of the statement contained in the order passed by, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- opp. party No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 was member of the society and its Assistant Secretary at the relevant time. Petitioner No. 2 was a member. Opp. party No. 3 raised a demand Under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in the sum of Rs. 2,74,425,40 and passed an order against the society. The requisition was sent to the Certificate Officer-opp. party No. ! for initiation of a proceeding under t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »