Orissa Court March 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.
Sanatan Jena (After Him) Nidu Dei and ors. Vs. Babji Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ori186
Pasayat, J.1. The refusal of the original petitioner's application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the code') had brought him to this Court.2. One Sanatan Jena as plaintiff filed T. S. No. 113 of 1985 in the court of the Munsif, Bhadrak for removal of certain encroachments over the suit property and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff-petitioner gave a particular description of property in the plaint and attached a rough sketch map indicating outlines of the suit property.3. The defendant (opposite party in the present case) filed written statement alleging vagueness of description of the suit property, Subsequently, an application for amendment was filed by the aforesaid Sanatan Jena to correct the description of the property. The application was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that the amendment would change the nature and character of the suit. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif by the impugned order rejecte...
Mamata Drinks and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC372
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 3 is a Company carrying on the business of manufacture of aerated soft drinks, namely, Gold Spot, Limca and Kismat. These products were liable to excise duty @ 20% ad valorem as aerated water under Tariff Item No. I D of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (shortly stated 'the Act').2. On 17.3.1972, a notification was issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (shortly stated 'the Rules') exempting aerated water other than those in which blended flavouring concentrates have been used from so much of excise duty as is in excess of 10% adivalorem. The result of the notification is that aerated water in which blended flavouring concentrates are not used are liable to excise duty @ 10% ad valorem and not 20% ad valorem. Itis the case of the petitioners that being under the erroneous impression that Gold Spot, Limca and Kismat contained blended flavouring concentrates, excise duty @ 20% ad v...
Niranjan Behera and anr. Vs. Laxmidhar Rana and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT48; 1991CriLJ1599
ORDERK.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, setting aside an interlocutory order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Cuttack, in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short).2. The parties belong to Cuttack town. The petitioners have their house on plot No. 1439. The opposite parties have their house on adjoining plot No. 1438. There is a passage on parts of plot No. 1438 and another adjoining plot No. 1441 in order to approach the petitioner's house from the public lane and this seems to be the only passage. The opposite parties obstructed the passage, as a result of which the petitioners were deprived of using the same. This gave rise to a dispute between the parties leading to apprehension of breach of peace. The petitioners, therefore, moved the Executive Magistrate by filing an application which was forwarded to the police for enquiry and report. After receipt...
Bidyadhar Naik and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT213; 1990CriLJ1579; II(1991)DMC304
K P. Mohapatra, J.1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh-Kondhmals, Phulbani, convicting the appellants under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentencing, each of them to undergo various terms of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fines.2. Prosecution case in brief is as follows:According to the caste custom, P. W. 1 was to marry the victim girl Surekha (P.W. 3) and so on the date of occurrence, namely, 24-11-1982 in the evening, the former was bringing the latter from the house of his father-in-law to his own house for the subsequent performance of marriage Gita (P.W. 4), elder sister of Surekha (P.W. 3) and two others were accompanying him. Inside the forest, all of a sudden the appellants emerged and gagging the mouth of Surekha (P.W. 3), she was physically lifted and carried away. A search was made but in vain. Subsequently it is alleged, appellant Mamu took her to the house of a relative, confined her in room and against her will and c...
Balgopal Panda and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT1; 1990CriLJ1848
K.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In all 15 accused persons, including the appellants and injured Srikara Panda and Banarnali Panda, stood trial for having committed offences under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with Sections 34 and 149 I.P.C. in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir. Out of them, appellant Balgopal was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323, appellant Jalbudu was convicted for the offence under Section 325, and appellants Digri and Bharat were convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. While appellant Balgopal was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the others were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms. The rest of the accused persons were acquitted of all charges. In this appeal, the conviction and sentence of the appellants have been assailed.2. Facts of the prosecution case are narrated in brief. There is a hill, named, Barapahad from which a natural stream, locally known as Arakha Khol flows and irrigates lands of villages K...
Mahendra Meheta and ors. Vs. Amaresh Sarkar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori1; 70(1990)CLT43
ORDERA.K. Padhi, J. 1. The plaintiffs-petitionerschallenge the order dated 17-8-1989 of theSub-Judge, Cuttack passed in Title SuitNo. 28 of 1984.2. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract which was numbered as Title Suit No. 28 of 1984. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant admitted the execution of the agreement of the contract, but took the specific plea that the contract was subsequently rescinded. After the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for argument, the defendant filed an application to amend the written statement to insert the date of recision of the contract and also prayed for some other formal amendments. The learned trial court after considering the prayer for amendment, came to the conclusion that it is necessary for proper adjudication and shall not change the nature and character of the suit. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that since the amendment which is sought for has been prayed only with the in...
Swami Hari Harananda Giri Vs. Yogoda Satsangha Society of India and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori75
ORDERK.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. After receipt of all the records by the trial court after conclusion of Civil Revision Nos. 1116 and 1117 of 1989 in this Court, the parties excepting Defendant No. 2 appeared before the lower court on 19-2-90 as per the direction of this Court and the case was directed to be put up on the next day i.e. 20-2-90 for appearance of defendant No. 2. On 20-2-90 defendant No. 1, the present petitioner filed a petition praying for a direction that the plaintiff be directed to examine the Secretary of Yogoda Satsanga Society of India first in view of the changed circumstances. In the order dated 6-2-1990 this Court directed that the question of examination of the Secretary of the plaintiff's society be reconsidered afresh notwithstanding the previous orders since the situation in the meanwhile has changed.2. Earlier the trial court by the order dated 23-9-89 allowed that the examination of the plaintiff to be deferred and permitted the plaintiff to examine his other...
Punia Biswal Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Rairakhol and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ori219; 70(1990)CLT181
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner purchased some standing trees from other private persons who claim those trees to be standing on their private land. On the basis of such purchase, petitioner filed an application on 16-4-1980 before the Tahasildar (O.P. No. 4) for a joint verification and on 20-4-1980, the fact of purchase was communicated to the Divisional Forest Officer (O.P. No. 1). On 28-4-1980, petitioner requested the Divisional Forest Officer to direct the Range Officer (O.P. No. 2) to take necessary steps for joint verification for which application in Form No. III was filed. On 5-6-1980, Divisional Forest Officer directed Range Officer to take up joint verification. Four months after, on 29-10-1980, petitioner requested the Divisional Forest Officer to depute an Amin of the Forest Department and forest officials for joint verification. On 1-11-1980. Verification was made and Range 'Officer submitted the re...
Arun Kumar Basantara Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1988
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C.2. On 3-5-1989, Purna Chandra Nai, lodged information at Capital Police-station that on 1-5-1989 his daughter had gone out side and had not returned back and he heard from his relatives that she was found with the petitioner at about 2 p.m. that day and petitioner was not found in his quarters. On the basis of this information, a case was registered in the Police station under Section 366 I.P.C.3. During investigation, brother and uncle of the petitioner were arrested and Investigating Officer insisted that they should produce the petitioner before him. They were released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge.4. Petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk in Bhubaneswar Telephone Exchange. Since Police Officers are bent upon arresting him on account of the informant and his family members to cause humilation and harassment to the petitioner, this application for bail has been filed.5. In view of ...
Gopal Behera and ors. Vs. Lokanath Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori6; 69(1990)CLT769
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The order dated 12-5-89 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1975 whereby he accepted the report of the Commissioner overruling the objections raised by the petitioner is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. Late Agadhu Behera, father of the petitioners, filed O.S. No. 25 of 1973--1 before the Munsif, Khurda for declaration of his title to the suit land, confirmation of his possession thereon and for permanent injunction against the opposite parties-defendants in respect of a strip of land measuring Ac 0.10 decimals under Khata No. 256 in Mouza Sampur. As stated in the revision petition the disputed strip of land lies on the western side of the petitioners' plot No. 558. The adjacent plot bearing No. 557 belongs to the opposite parties. The gist of the case stated in the plaint was that the disputed strip of land was a part of plot No. 558. It originally belonged to one Nityananda who sold the same to Agadhu ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »