Orissa Court April 1990 Judgments
The Orissa State Electricity Board Vs. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori59
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge in a suit for refund of consideration money to the tune of Rupees 60,000/- that was paid to the defendant for purchasing 37.07 acres of land described in the plaint Schedule, as the defendant failed to execute the sale deed as it had no title over the said land.2. Plaintiffs case, briefly stated, is that the defendant-Company which manufactures ferro-silicon in its factory at Theruvali in the district of Koraput negotiated with the plaintiff for supply of power. The plaintiffs officers intimated that in order to enable the plaintiff to supply power it would be necessary to establish a substation and requisite buildings for staff quarters and, therefore, some land would be necessary by them. The defendant agreed to sell 37.07 acres of land for a consideration of Rs.88,032/- which the defendant stated to be its leasehold property from the Government. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 60,0...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Jena and ors. Vs. Nakhi Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR449
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This writ application is directed against the revisional order of the Commissioner annexed as Annexure-5 who, in the revision filed at the instance of the petitioners, has ordered that the hand should be recorded in the name of the opposite parties even though the opposite parties have never assailed the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as the order of the appellate authority.2. The total consolidable land was 2.37 acres and the present dispute centres round 18 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 49, in the land register the name of the petitioners had been noted in respect of the land in question, Opp. party No. 1 filed objection obviously Under Section 9(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (for short 'the Act'), inter alia, on the ground that kinei Rout who was also a member of the joint family had made an oral gift in favour of his wife Chani and pursuant to the said oral gift Chani was occupying ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Prasad Das Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC91; 1991ACJ544; 70(1990)CLT445
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Having been convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, which were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1982 (32/82-B GDC), the petitioner has filed this revision assailing his conviction and the sentences imposed. It may be noted that the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The petitioner was driving a truck bearing registration number ORS 5997 from Sudrukumna to the Kenduleaf depot at village Ghatatala on the jungle ghat road having a steep down-gradient on 12.3.1979 at 4.30 p.m. There were eight occupants, two of whom were inside the cabin and the rest on the truck. The truck d...
Tag this Judgment!Peddini Erraya Reddy and anr. Vs. Smt. Peddini Sarana
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT236; II(1991)DMC322
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision, Claiming to be wife of the defendant, plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance. In the suit, plaintiff filed an application for interim maintenance. Trial Court having directed payment of Rs. 100/- per month as interim maintenance, this Civil Revision has been filed.2. Undisputedly, plaintiff on an earlier occasion, filed an application for interim maintenance in the suit. Defendant who disputes the relationship with the plaintiff contested the said application. On the finding that plaintiff has not been able to prima facie prove that she is his legally married wife such application was rejected. Trial Court held that no material either documentary or which is acceptable was proved by the plaintiff. Thereafter, this application for interim maintenance was filed in which the impugned order has been passed. Besides assailing relationship, the defendant has challenged the maintainability of the second petition on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambar Mishra Vs. Chandra Sekhar Panda and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1892
V. Gopalaswamy, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, dated 9-11-1983 in ICC No. 330 of 1983 acquitting the accused persons under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. S. S. Das, while supporting the impugned order, has submitted that the very order taking cognizance and directing issue of process to the accused persons (the present respondents) having been passed in violation of Section 202 of the Code, the entire criminal proceeding against the respondents was vitiated on that score as well. In the present case the complaint petition was filed in the court of the C. J. M., Cuttack, who had sent the case to the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, for inquiry under Section 202, of the Code after such inquiry when the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, submitted his report, the C. J. M. perused the report and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Bidyadhar Jena Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT375; 1991CriLJ2700
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this revision application the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh and confirmed in appeal by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, are assailed.2. In short, the prosecution case is that, on 7-6-1986 the petitioner was transacting sale of adulterated cow milk; the Food Inspector, Sundargarh purchased 0.660 mis. of cow milk on payment of requisite price and after dividing the purchased milk into three equal divisions added 18 drops of 40% formalin to each of the divisions; packed them in clean, dry, empty and neutral glass bottles separately; the mouth of the glass bottles were fitted tight with corks, sealed and after affixing the label copies, as required under law, they were wrapped with papers and fastened with threads properly and both the ends of the papers were folded and affixed with gum; the paper slips bearing serial number, code number and the signature of the local Health Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Sarbeswar Rath and anr. Vs. Consolidation Officer and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR362
ORDER1. Order No. 15 dated 24-4-1990-It is not necessary to give the details as to the source of title of the properties inasmuch as in our view the revision filed by Katik Khamari, opp. party No. 4 has not been judiciously determined and the manner in which the Consolidation Commissioner has allowed the revision and vacated the orders of the Court below is not in consonance with sound judicial principles. It is not the law that merely because somebody has obtained a sate deed tie has got title to the property as vendee and his title has to toe declared so long the dead has not been set aside by a competent Court of law. If the deed is void, no steps need be taken to set it aside. The vendor may not have title to convey. In such a case the title deed may be ignored as not worth the paper written on. These aspects have not been unfortunately dealt by the Commissioner who is one of them who ewe not well versed in law but are required to dispose of complicated question? relating to civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasanna Dash Vs. Bhabani Devi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1990
Reported in: II(1992)DMC134
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by thelearned Sub-divisional Judl. Magistrate, Puri on 16.3.1990 in Criminal Misc.Case No. 46 of 1989 refusing his prayer to consider the question of maintainability of the proceeding and to drop the proceeding forthwith, the petitionerfiled this application under Sections. 401 and 402, Criminal Procedure Code(shortly referred to as the 'Code') with the prayer to quash the said order andto drop the proceeding. The proceeding before the learned Magistrate wasinitiated on the application filed by the opposite party under Section. 125 of theCode claiming maintenance from the petitioner.2. The opposite party filed the application under Section 125 of theCode claiming to be the wife of the petitioner which relationship is stronglydenied by the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner in the revision petitionand not denied by the opposite party that in the application filed under Section125 of the Code, she stated, inter alia, that a...
Tag this Judgment!Nikunja Kishore Pradhan Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT416
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core question that arises for determination in this case is whether the decree-holder should b'e directed to first proceed against the principal debtor for realisation of the decretal dues before proceeding against the guarantor.2. In this revision petition, a challenge is raised to the order dated July 12, 1989, of the Subordinate Judge, Talcher, in Execution Case No. 2 of 1984 whereby he rejected the petitioner's application for the aforementioned direction to the decree-holder. The relevant facts giving rise to the present proceeding may be shortly stated as follows :Opposite party No. 1, State Bank of India, represented by its branch manager at Talcher filed Money Suit No. 15 of 1986 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Talcher, against the petitioner, Nikunja Kishore Pradhan, as defendant No. 2, opposite party No. 2, Bidhu Bhusan Pattnaik, as defendant No. 1 and opposite party No. 3,, Krishna Singh, as defendant No. 3 for realisation of Rs. 1,70,447.69 o...
Tag this Judgment!Santilata Pradhan Vs. Mrutunjaya Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-20-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT702; I(1991)DMC256
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') the petitioner who is the wife of the opposite party, has challenged the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Athmallik in Criminal Misc. Case No. 79 of 1987, under Section 127 of the Code, reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 25/-.2. The gist of the facts relevant for the present proceeding may be stated thus :On the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code (Criminal Misc. Case No. 53 of 1982/T.R. No. 60/83) the learned S.D.J.M. passed the order directing the opposite party to pay the petitioner maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1985. The Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order and rejected the revision petition filed by the opposite party. His attempt to challenge the order before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 447 of 1986 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »