Orissa Court November 1990 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.
Umakanta Palatasingh and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT376; 1991(I)OLR286
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application Under Section 389, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mother and son, the two appellants have been convicted Under Section 306, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R I. for five years each. They were charged Under Section 304-B, l.P.C. for which notice to show cause why they shall not be convicted Under Section 304-B. I.P C. and the sentence should not be enhanced, has been issued in this appeal. Mother, appellant No. 2 aged about 55 years has been directed to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only with one surety in this appeal. Application in respect of son appellant No. 1 was kept pending to be considered after receipt of the L.C.R. This matter has been placed after receipt of the record of the lower Court.3. In Criminal appeals, paper books are to be prepared as per rules of the Court. That, however, being only procedural, I offered to hear the appeal referring to the original since one of the convicts is in jail. Mr...
Hindu Public and anr. Vs. Rabadi Gopal Reddy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR50
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This appeal Under Section 44(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, declaring respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal to be the Hereditary Trustees of the institution. The said respondents 1 to 5 filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Commissioner Under Section 41 of the Act for a declaration that the institution of Mahammayee Thakurani at Kabisuryanagar is a public religious institution and the properties endowed are public religious endowments and they are the Hereditary Trustees thereof. It was alleged in the petition that the Deity was founded by their ancestors some two hundred years back and since the date of foundation it was the forefathers of respondents 1 to 5 herein who were in peaceful possession of the properties and management fay way of succession from generation to generation and the members of the general...
Santipriya Jena and anr. Vs. Rebati Naik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT386; 1991(I)OLR139
P.C. Misra, J.1. The plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 78 of 1986 of the Court of Munsif, jagatsinghpur are the petitioners in this revision challenging the legality of the order passed by the learned Munsif on 10-5-1989 holding that the said suit has abated Under Section 4(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter called the 'Consolidation Act').2. The simple question for consideration in this revision is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a suit for partition would abate as has been held in this case by the learned Munsif. The plaintiff prayed for partition claiming interest in the suit properties as daughters of one H'whikesh Jena. Their case is that the property in respect of which patition sought for, belonged to their father, and they being the only legal representatives, left behind after his death, they are entitled to succeed to their father's interest. It has been alleged in the plaint that the husband of defe...
Shiva Manohar Dash Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR265
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. The revision has been filed by the informant in G. R. Case No. 366/1986 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-1967 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawapara, district Kalahandi acquitting opp. party No. 2, Bhagaban Meher.2. Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 12-10-1986 at. about 9. 30 A.M. while the petitioner who was a Junior Engineer at the material time was at the work site busy with supervision of the work, opp. party No. 2 (accused in the G.R. case), came to him and asked for some arrear dues which the informant refused to pay. This appears to have led to some altercation between the parties, in course of which opp. party No. 2 is alleged to have dealt Chapal blows to the informant. On the information lodged by the petitioner, a case Under Sections 353 and 355, I.P.C. was registered against opp: party No. 2 Bhagaban Meher and he was sent up for trial3. The defence of the accused-opp party No. 2 is one of denial.4. ...
Parsuram Mahabhoi and ors. Vs. Janaki Dei and ors. and Daitari Jena an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT620; 1991(I)OLR193
A. Pasayat, J.1. Prayer for transposing some of the co-plaintiffs as pro forma defendants having been refused, the present revision application has been filed.2. The petitioners are plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 in Title Suit No. 185 of 1980 of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, The suit is one for specific performance of contract allegedly entered into by the present petitioners and pro forma opposite party Nos. 5, 6 and 7 with defendant No. 1 opposite party No, 1. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed for transposition of the aforesaition forma opposite parties who were plaintiff Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in the suit. The application was resisted by the defendants on , the ground that on 15-4-1985 the suit had already been dismissed under Order 9, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC')by operation of law for man-attendance of concerned plaintiffs on 15-4-85. Several other ground; on the merit of the suit were also indicated. After hearing the part...
Biswanath Nanda Vs. Madhu Sethi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT479; 1991(I)OLR126
A. Pasayat, J.1. Plaintiff's success in the trial Court having been reversed by the appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed mainly raising one short but interesting point for adjudication.2. Plaintiff also described hereinafter as the appellant, filed a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties recovery of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of consideration money of Rs. 1,000/- on equitable grounds. The factual antecedents, as averred in the plaint, in which controversy arose as are follows ;Defendant, hereinafter also described as the respondent, for family necessity and to pay off debts, sold the suit house along with some paddy lands for a consideration of Rs. 1500/- under a registered sale deed dated 21-7-1965, and delivered possession of both the suit house and paddy lands to the plaintiff after sale. But with his permission the defendant remaned in the suit house as a licensee oromising to give up possession to t...
Ram Chander Agarwalla Vs. Mrudula Poddar @ Agarwalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT498; II(1991)DMC48
A. Pasayat, J.1. Quantum of interim maintenance and litigation expenses granted in a proceeding filed for dissolution of marriage is the subject-matter of dispute in this revision application,2. The plaintiff-petitioner has instituted O.S. No. 190 of 1986 (1) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh praying for dissolution of marriage. Stand of the wife-opposite party is that the husband has illegally descerted her and the minor child, and the suit has been filed with oblique motives. Undisputedly, the parties litigating are married to each other and the question to be gone into in the suit would be whether justifiable-reasons exist for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the suit, an application styled as one under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') was filed by the wife claiming interim maintenance for herself, and the minor daughter and litigation expenses in order to enable her to effectively participate in the adjudicatory proces...
Ram Chandra Agarwalla Vs. Mrudula Podder Alias Agarwalla
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR161
A. Pasayat, J.1. Quantum of interim maintenance and litigation expenses granted in a proceeding filed for dissolution of marriage is the subject-matter of dispute in this revision application.2. The plaintiff-petitioner has instituted O. S. No. 190 of 1986 (I) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh praying for dissolution of marriage. Stand of the, wife-opposite party 'is that the husband has illegally deserted her and the minor child, and the suit has been filed with oblique motive. undisputedly, the parties litigating are married to each other and the question to be gone into in the suit would be whether justifiable reasons exist for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the suit, an application styled as one Under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act') was filed by the wife claiming interim maintenance for herself, and the minor daughter and litigation expenses in order to enable her to effectively participate in the adjudicatory proces...
Mahant Sri Pranab Kishore Bharati Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT450; 1991(I)OLR225
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. The law relating to powers, of the Sebait or Mahant to alienate property belonging to the deity or Math is well settled. The powers are akin to those of a manager of an infant heir and were authoritatively stated in Hanooman Persad Pandey's case, 6 MIA 393. The statutory law embodied in Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, has added a further safeguard by mandating prior permission of the Commissioner of Endowments in case the alienation is any of the types contemplated by the section. Discharge of function of the Commissioner is administrative in nature and there is no question of res judicata in the sense that any order passed thereunder may be reviewed, modified or altered on cogent grounds if the circumstances justify the same.2. The ambit and scope of the function of the sebait or mahant is that of a prudent owner. As a: prudent owner would not desire his property to be sold at a lesser price if higher price is available for the' proper...
Sruti Shekhar Singh Samanta Vs. Managing Director, Orissa Road Transpo ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ995; AIR1991Ori225; 71(1991)CLT769
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. These appeals filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are directed against the award passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in Misc. Cases Nos. 183 and 184 of 1981. Both the Misc. Cases were filed by the appellant Sruti Shekhar Singh Samanta for compensation on account of the accident which took place on 2-2-1979. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The accident giving rise to the proceedings for compensation took place on 2-2-1979 at 4.30 p.m. when there was a head-on collision between the Jeep bearing registration No. ORD 1540 in which the appellant, his father late Mayadhar Singh Samanta and some others were travelling and the road train comprised of two buses bearing registration No. ORG 2392 and ORG 2118 beloning to the Orissa Road Transport Company. The place of the accident was near Santha Tulsidas Tank on the National Hig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »