Orissa Court August 1990 Judgments
The Sakhigopal Regulated Market Committee Vs. Brudaban Chandra Hota an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori252
ORDER1. An interesting question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether any local authority or company for whose benefit land is acquired by Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act can claim to be added as a party in the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The petitioner made an application before the Subordinate Judge to be arrayed as a party in the proceedings before him, but the Subordinate Judge by order dated 21-7-1990 having rejected the petitioner's prayer to be added as a party but only permitting the petitioner to place the relevant facts and to assist the court in arriving at due compensation, the petitioner has preferred this revision.3. Admittedly, the land in question for which the proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is pending before the Subordinate Judge has been acquired for the petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner contends that since the land...
Tag this Judgment!K. Satyanarayana Subudhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT78; 1991CriLJ959
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India with the aid of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended (hereinafter, 'the Act') with a view to prevent the petitioner from being engaged in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods, otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The order was passed on 28th June, 1990 and is founded on the following two grounds :--(1) Recovery of 13 bars/biscuits of gold of foreign origin each weighing 10 tolas from the handbag carried by the petitioner on a search being made near Berhampur railway station. This recovery was made under these circumstances : An information was received by the officers of the Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar, that the petitioner was engaged in dealing with foreign gold which he gets from Calcutta and disposes of in differ...
Tag this Judgment!Biranchi Narayan Hadu Vs. Smt. Krushnapriya Debi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori55; 71(1991)CLT149
1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for recovery of possession on the allegation that the alienation made by the father of the plaintiff is invalid and does not convey any title.2. The plaintiff alleged that he along with defendants 3 and 4 are sons of late Somanath Sahu and defendant No. 2 is the widow of late Somanath Sahu. The suit plot No. 2983 under khata No. 1777 measuring an area of Ac. Order 510 decimals is the ancestral pabayat jagir land of the family who were enjoying the same by performing the sebapuja of Lord Lingaraj. That Plot No. 2983 is adjacent to the Lawis road intervened by plot No. 2982 and plot No. 2982 belonged to one Harekrishna Batu and others. In order to have access to plot No. 2983, the plaintiff had purchased Ac. 0. Order 13 decimals from plot No. 2982. The plaintiffs father was adicted to opium and though he had no right to sell away the joint ancestral property without the consent of the coparceners, he executed a registe...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Chandra @ Purnananda Mohapatra Vs. Malati Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC555
V. Gopalaswamy, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant-husband has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24-11-1980 and decree dated 3-12-1980, decreeing the plaintiff-wife's suit, holding that she is entitled to arrear, pendente lite and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month, besides Rs. 1,000/- for separate residence.2. The plaintiff's case may be briefly stated as follows :The plaintiff is the legally married wife of the defendant and they lived as husband and wife and out of their wedlock a son and a daughter were born to them. The son did not survive for long. By the date of filing of the suit the daughter was aged about 23 years and she was already married. In or about Ashadh 1974 the defendant had brought a young girl named Padmavati and married her and lived with her in the same house which was objected to by the plaintiff. Subsequently as the plaintiff persisted in her objection against the said Padmavati and the defendant living as husband and wife in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sri Kumar Mohanty, Vs. State of Orissa, Represented by the Secreta ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR142
A. Pasayat, J.1. Attacking vires instead of virus has become regular feature for doctors seeking selection to the Resident House Staff Assignment (in short 'RHS'), Post Graduate Courses (in short 'PG')and Higher Specialties in the three Government medical colleges of the State. It does not indicate a Wealthy state of affairs in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of Orissa. The malady continues in spite of several Judicial operations undertaken by the Supreme Court and this Court to prevent it. The present three writ applications involve challenge to paragraph 7.5 of the prospectus issued for selection of candidates for the aforesaid courses relating to year 1930-91. Since the grounds of attack and defence are common, the writ applications are disposed of by this common judgment which shall govern each one of them.2. Applications in the prescribed form were invited, for selection of candidates for the Three Year P. G. Courses including one year of RHS Alignmen...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitan Charan Parida Vs. Maheswar Parida and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori125
A.K. Padhi, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. Plaintiffs I and 2 are husband and wife. In the plaint it was pleaded, inter alia, that plaintiff No. 2 happens to be the second wife of plaintiff No. 1. The parties did not have any issue. To satisfy plaintiff No. 2 the wife, plaintiff No. 1 had executed a gift dead in favour of plaintiff No. 2. The gift deed in favour of plaintiff No. 2 was only a nominal one. The defendant happens to be agnatic nephew of plaintiffs and was looking after their affairs and the suit properties. In the year 1973 the defendant persuaded the plaintiffs to execute a power-of-attorney in his favour to protect the plaintiffs as there was an encroachment case started against the plaintiff No. 1. Instead of power-of-attorney thedefendant took away a gift deed in his favour on 1-3-1973. Plaintiff No. 1 is an old and illiterate person and plaintiff No. 2 is an old illiterate paradanashin lady. They had executed the document without knowing it to be a gift deed. S...
Tag this Judgment!Piyus Ekka and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1583
L. Rath, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No. 125/10 of 1981/85 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 221/85 has been preferred by Piyus Ekka and Criminal Appeal No. 244/85 has been preferred by Tarkeswar Prasad Sah, Rambabu Sah and Harbans Singh. All the four appellants were made to stand trial Under Section 394/397, IPC and Under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Besides, appellant Rambabu Sah was also further charged under Sections 279/337, IPC. They were convicted Under Section 394 read with Section 397, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each. All the appellants except Rambabu Sah were also convicted Under Sections 23 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year Under Section 25 and two years Under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Rambabu Sah has also been convicted Under Section 337, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for six months and t...
Tag this Judgment!Nrusingha Charan Bal Vs. Paramananda Sharma and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC37; 1991ACJ679; AIR1991Ori77
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Claimant is the appellant his application for compensation having been rejected by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground that it is barred by time.2. The application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alleging that on 22-2-1983 at 10 A. M. while the claimant was passing on the Express Highway, the truck bearing registration number OSC 9025 being driven rashly and negligently came and dashed as a result of which the claimant sustained severe injuries on his waist, right leg and other parts of his body. The claimant was a student and the injury suffered by him was a handicap in consequence of which he could not attend his classes and he received mental shock and pain and was demoralised and was unable to perform his studies.3. The owner as well as the Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The Insurer took the plea that the app...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Modi Vs. Jadunath Mohapatra
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori88
ORDERP.C. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by an Executing Court refusing the prayer of the surviving judgment-debtor to drop the Execution Case as not maintainable. The facts in brief leading to the aforesaid order may be stated as follows:The present opp. party (Jadunath Moha-patra) filed a proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act against the present petitioner and his father Mohanlal Modi alleging that the said Mohanlal was a 2tenant in respect of a shop room and that he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and also for the reason that the landlord required the house bond fide for his own purpose, it has been stated that there was no allegation in the said proceeding that the present petitioner was a tenant under thepresent opp. party, though he was included as one of the opp. parties in the said proceeding. The petitioner alleges that he is one of the 5 sons of Mohanlal. The petitioner and his father (since dead) denied the ...
Tag this Judgment!Trilochan Behera (and After Him) Smt. Sabitri Beherani and ors. Vs. Na ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ori80
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and realisation of mesne profits.2. The suit land measures Ac. 2.72 appertaining to plot No. 44, khata No. 14 of mauza Sitarampur in the district of Koraput the boundary of which has been given in the plaint. Plaintiffs' case in a nut-shell is that on 20-11-1958 under a registered sale deed (Ext. 2) plaintiff No. 1 purchased the suit land along with some other lands from defendant No. 2 and also obtained delivery of possession through her husband (plaintiff No. 2) and ever since then plaintiffs are in possession till the land was attached in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the further case that while describing the plot numbers in the sale deed plot Nos. 21 and 50 were wrongly mentioned whereas the boundary that was given was in respect of plot No. 44 and what was delivered to the plaintiffs was plot No. 44. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »