Orissa Court October 1990 Judgments
Bishnu Charan SwaIn and anr. Vs. Orissa State Road Transport Corporati ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-17-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC688
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Matter was listed for taking steps relating to substitution of appellant No. 1. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the name of appellant No. 1 may be deleted. In that view of the matter, with consent of parties, appeal was heard. Since it is otherwise ready for hearing.2. There is no dispute that death was on account of accident. Liability can be escaped if it is proved that there was no negligence. Award of some compensation which is not challenged in appeal or by cross-objection and has become final itself is a fact from which inference of negligence can be drawn since there is no scope for award of compensation without negligence. Only question therefore, is whether deceased had contributory negligence.3. Tribunal has not accepted the story of claimants that deceased was trying to save a boy from accident on account of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sabita Sahoo Vs. CaptaIn Khirod Kumar Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC288
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These two revision petitions are inter-linked. They are directed against different orders passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Bhubaneswar With consent of the learned counsel for the parties the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.2. The controversy in these cases relates to payment of interim maintenance by Khirod Kumar Sahoo to Smt. Sabita Parida alias Sahu during pendency of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for proper appreciation of the contentions raised by the counsel, it is necessary to state in short the factual backdrop of the case.3. On the application filed by Smt. Sabita Sahu on 31.5.88 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988 was initiated by the Judicial Magistrate, First, Class, Bhubaneswar. In the said application she alleged, inter alia, that she had married to Khirod Kumar Sahoo, an officer of the Indian Army an...
Tag this Judgment!Sabita Sahoo Vs. CaptaIn Khirod Kumar Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC307
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These two revision petitions are inter-linked. They are directed against different orders passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The controversy in these cases relates to payment of interim maintenance by Khirod Kumar Sahoo to Smt. Sabita Parida alas Sahu during pendency of the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. For proper appreciation of the contentions raised by the counsel, it is necessary to state in short the factual backdrop of the case.3. On the application filed by Smt. Sabita Sahu on 31-5-1988 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. Case No, 37 of 1988 was initiated by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar. In the said application she alleged, inter alia, that she had married to Khirod Kumar Sahoo, an officer of the Indian Ar...
Tag this Judgment!Purandar Bhukta Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT193; 1991CriLJ1388
ORDERV. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1985 convicting the petitioner Under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 24-12-1980 at about 9 a.m. while the informant, Block Development Officer, Boudh, was working in his Block Office at Boudh, the accused, a Contractor, came to his office and demanded of him to pay him money in relation to the contract work done by him and when the informant told him that no money were due to be paid to him as he did not do any work, the accused gave a slap to him and left the office and thereby rendered himself liable Under Sections 448 and 332, I.P.C.3. The accused pleads that the informant has foisted this false case against him, due to previous enmity.4. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court, while acquitting the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Parakshita Pradhan Vs. Bairagi Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1519
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Parakhita Pradhan, brother of the deceased Laxmidhar Pradhan filed this application Under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. to cancel the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, puri admitting the, opposite party No. 1 Bairagi Pradhan to bail. 2. The opposite party No. 1 along with others has been charge-sheeted Under Sections 302, 323, 149, 148 and 147, IPC. for having committed the murder of Laxmidhar Pradhan on 6-10-1989. In the application under Section 439(2) it is stated, inter alia, that the opp. party No. 1 though named in the FIR as one of the assailants was not included in the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, on the intervention of the superior police officers further charge-sheet including his name as an accused was submitted. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the influence exercised by the opposite party No. 1 on the local police, particularly the Investigating Officer and the Addl. Superintendent of Police hi...
Tag this Judgment!Suni Singh and ors. Vs. Khitish Chandra Tripathy and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC563
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the claimants who are parents and widow of the deceased. On 14.9.1987 at about 9.30 a.m. the vehicle ORM 1888 caused accident as a result of which deceased succumbed to the injuries. Claiming deceased to be aged 20 years, claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 360/- per month and accordingly, they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. While not disputing the accident, owner of the vehicle deined negligence blaming the deceased for the accidental account of his mental unsoundness. Insurer accepting the insurance denied all other facts.2. Tribunal held the deceased to be aged 20 years having monthly income of Rs. 360/- out of which he was contributing Rs. 200/- for dependency. Finding negligence of the driver to be cause of accident, tribunal applied multiple of 10 and determined just compensation at Rs. 24,000/- with a direction tha...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalita Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ1035
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Only grievance of insurer is the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal. No cross-objection has been filed.2. On 2.7.1986 at about 4 p.m., deceased sustained injuries on account of accident by the motor cycle bearing No. 4096 for which insurer has undertaken to take up the liability of the owner in terms of the insurance policy. Injured was removed to Balipadar Hospital with head injuries and from there he was removed to Bhanjanagar Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.3. Finding of the Tribunal that death was due to negligent driving of the vehicle is well proved. It is also proved that claimants are entitled to compensation. Only question for consideration is whether the determination of compensation by the Tribunal is just.4. Age of the deceased at the time of his death was held by the Tribunal to be 55 years though it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Budhi Dei Vs. Kalu Muduli and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-10-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT204; 1991(I)OLR158
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The present petitioner who is the plaintiff filed a Title Suit bearing No. 152 of 1986 in the Court of the Munsif, Jagatsinghpur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-' opp. parties from making any construction over the suit land measuring Ac. 0. 53 decimals as detailed in the plaint and from changing the nature and character of the suit Sand and also from encroaching and/or' removing any. portion of the common passage as shown in biack colour in the sketch map appended to the plaint, and also from filling the tank as shown in yellow colour in the said map and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit land which is in his separate possession. The suit was filed on 14-7-1986. The defendants are the members of the joint family, some of them being the co-sharers. The consolidation operation started in that area on 2-5-1985 prior to . the filing of the suit. At the time of filing of the suit the land was unde...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Mills and Electrical Stores Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori117
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The plaintiffs prefer this appeal against the judgment dated 28-3-1979 and decree dated 10-4-1979 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, in O.S. No. 41 of 1975 III, disallowing the plaintiffs' claim to the extent of Rs. 47,792.04, while decreeing the suit in part only for a sum of Rs. 24,099.58.2. The plaintiffs' case may be briefly stated as follows:The plaintiffs are the partners representing the registered partnership firm M/s. Jain Mills and Electrical Stores which deals in electrical goods and supplies electrical equipments, appliances and materials to Government and semi-Government Departments and also to the public in general. Defendant No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation (Electrical, on behalf of the State of Orissa (defendant No. 1) invited tenders for supply of electrical goods and in response to the same, the plaintiffs' firm submitted its quotations on 5-2-1973. Defendant No. 2 accepted the quotations submitted by the plaintiffs' firm ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›