Orissa Court May 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.
Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha and ors. Vs. Rourkela Steel Plant and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ571Ori
L. Rath, J. 1. Each of these petitions filed by rival trade unions arises out of orders passed by the Labour Commissioner, Orissa, in the same verification proceeding. Both the cases relate essentially to the same matter, i.e. recognition of trade unions operating in the Steel Plant at Rourkela.In O.J.C. No. 4426/89 notice was issued which was sufficient on all the opposite parties. During the course of hearing on admission it was directed by order No. 8 dated March 7, 1990 to put up the matter for final disposal. Counter affidavits have also been filed in the case by opposite party Nos. 1 and 16. Opposite party No. 18 in O.J.C. No. 4426/89 is the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 361/90 and the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 4426/89 is opposite party No,4 in O.J.C. No. 361/90. In O.J.C. No. 361/90 notice was also issued to al 1 the opposite parties except opposite party Nos 1, 8 and 17 who had already appeared. The notice issued was sufficient on all parties. In O.J.C. No. 4426/89 the opposite party...
Panchanan Rout Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2442
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18-6-1983 of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months and further convicting him under Section 161, I.P.C. as well without imposing any separate sentence thereunder.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:The appellant was serving as the Inspector of Police, Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela, from 19-2-1979. P.W. 9 Md. Munna was doing iron scrap business since about 10 to 12 years prior to the date of occurrence and the licence of the business stood in the name of his nephew Md. Sabaj. On 3-3-1979 the appellant with his police staff raided the business premises of P.W. 9, seized scrap materials fr...
Radhakrushna Das Vs. Mrutunjaya Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-09-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2363
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 4-1-1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaleswar in I.C.C. No. 89 of 1982 acquitting the accused persons (the present respondents) of the charges under Sections 448/34 and 427/34, I.P.C. under Section 256, Cr. P.C.2. The impugned order dated 4-1-1985 is quoted below:'41.4-1-85 Complainant files hazira. Accused persons are represented in two separate petitions Under Section 317, Cr. P.C. Heard. It is allowed. The complainant though files hazira is absent on call. Again call after 15 minutes.Later The complainant is absent on repeated calls. No witnesses are also produced by him for hearing although directed in the last date. Hence the accused persons are acquitted Under Section 256, Cr. P.C.Sd.S.D.J.M.'The relevant portion of the order passed on the preceding date that is on 17-12-1984 is quoted below:'.......Hearing of the cases cannot be taken up in absence of the accused Shibanarayan Ghadei. To avoid fu...
Sri Radha Kanta Padhi Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC372; 71(1991)CLT733
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The controversy raised in this case relates to the power of Officers of the State Motor Vehicle Department to take away vital documents like registration certificate, fitness certificate and driving licence at the time of checking of vehicles.2. In this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties directing them not to seize the motor vehicle documents excepting under circumstances as provided under Sections 206 and 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988). The State Govt. represented by its Secretary in the Transport department, the State Transport Authority, Orissa represented by its Secretary, the Commissioner of Transport, the Regional Transport Authority, Puri represented through its Secretary and the Regional Transport Officer, Bhubaneswar are impleaded in the writ petition as opposite parties 1 to 5 respectively3. The gist of the facts stated in ...
Smt. Namita Poul Choudhury @ Biswas and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori115
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Widow and Minor son of judgment-debtor have approached this Court for setting aside the order dated 6-11-1987 of the executing Court. They filed Civil Revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order. Subsequently, however, they prayed the same to be converted to an appeal. Such application having been allowed, present appeal has been registered.2. Following two questions arise for consideration.(a) Whether appeal in this Court is maintainable? (b) Whether order dated 6-11-1987 suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction.3. In order to appreciate contentions of learned counsel for both parties, facts relevant are to be narrated in short to indicate the circumstances under which impugned order was passed.4. Opposite party No. 1 filed suit for recovery of money and on the basis of decree Execution Case was filed against late Gourpal Choudhury, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 who is minor. Coming across a notice publish...
Dinabandhu Sahoo Vs. Budhi Debi (Dead) (and After Her) Narasingh Parid ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori215
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Can an appellant withdraw the suit, when the appeal is pending, is the ultimate question that falls for consideration. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, dismissing the suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of the suit property, instituted on the allegations that the suit properties were purchased benami in the name of defendant-respondent Budhi Debi, by the plaintiff-appellant. The challenge of the said defendant-respondent was that the suit property has been acquired by utilisation of her own funds, without any aid from the plaintiff-appellant. The suit had been dismissed on the finding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving benami acquisition. 2. The defendant-respondent Budhi Debi died on 29-4-1985. A memorandum was filed by the appellant that he being the sole heir of the deceased, by application of Section 15 of the Hin...
Smt. Basanta Sahu Vs. Padma Charan Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR138
ORDER1. A complaint is made that the injured . Arakhita Sahoo has not been examined by the. Investigating Officer If that be so, we direct the investigating Officer to examine the injured and record his statement and secure the injury report relating to him from the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital2. Heard counsel for the parties. Having regard to the facts ajid circumstances, we direct release of each of the accused persons on bail of Rs. 5000/- each with two sureties-for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.3. We, however, observe in this connection that while disposing application for anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Judge should not have directed release of the accused persons on bail as if he was dealing with an application Under Section 439, Cr. P.C with the rejection of the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the proceeding Under Section 438, Cr. P. C. came to an end The applicants by then had not surrendered and if they were to surrender, t...
Bhagirathi Routray and Etc. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT813; 1991CriLJ209
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment in T.R. Case No. 17 of 1981 disposed of by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, where both the appellants were accused persons. They stood charged under Section 5(1)(c)/5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'the Act'), Section 34 of the Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 409/471, IPC.2. The learned trial Judge found both the appellants guilty of the above charges and sentenced each of them to under go rigorious imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 9,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more under Section 5(1)(c)/(5)(2) of the Act. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 471 IPC with direction that the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. No separate sentence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act, Section 34 IPC and Section 409/34, IPC ...
indramani Jena Vs. Minjilata Jena and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC545
L. Rath, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak refusing to set aside an ex-parte order of maintenance passed against the petitioner. The facts in brief are that the opposite parties, respectively the mother and daughter, filed Misc. Case No. 182/88 on 21-12-1988 claiming maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month from the petitioner. Earlier, a Misc. Case filed by the opposite party No. 1 in the same Court numbered as Misc. Case No. 18/86 for maintenance had been dismissed for default on 5-4-1988. On 21-12-1988 notice was directed to be issued in M.C. No. 182/88 fixing 30-1-1989 for appearance. The notice having been returned back unserved, order was passed on 30-1-1989 for re-issue of the same fixing 7-2-1989 for service return. On 7-2-1989, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the following order :'Order No. 3 dated 7-2-1989 :Advocate for petitioner files hazira, S.R. back being served by (sic) affixture on refusal. Petitioner proves service. Servic...
Govinda Pradhan and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: 70(1990)CLT409; 1991CriLJ269
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Having been convicted under Section 396 of the IPC. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 7/59-A of 1978, the two appellants have preferred this appeal.2. There was a dacoity in the night of 13-2-1978 in the house of Lingaraj Panda of village Ramachandrapur in the district of Puri. The culprits forced themselves in, assaulted some of the inmates, used fire arms and decamped with the booty. Sudhibaman Ferida, the servant, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and some persons were injured. In course of investigation, several persons were apprehended and ultimately placed on trial. Before commencement of the trial, some of the accused managed to excape from jail custody. A few were apprehended and trial of the accused except those who had been apprehended, proceeded in Sessions Trial Nos. 7/59 of 1978 and 4/49 of 1979 wherein some were convicted and some acquitted. Some of the convicted persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 202 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›