Orissa Court November 1991 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.
Purastam Alias Purosottam Gaigouria and ors. Vs. Chatru Alias Chatrubh ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR72
R.C. Patnaik, J. 1. This case was referred to a larger Bench to consider the question if an erroneous decision of the trial Court as regards the party having right to begin is a case decided within the explanation to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Prior to the amendment of Section 115 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act, 104 of 1976), the revisional jurisdiction of this Court was attracted in a case decided by the Subordinate Court from which no appeal lay to the High Court if jurisdiction not vested in it by law has been exercised or the subordinate Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. There was a clamour for omission of Section 115 from the Code. The proposal of the Law Commission that in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 115 of the Code was no longer necessary was not accepted by the Joint Committee. It was of the view ...
Bhagchand Ahuja Vs. B. De Souza
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR103
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This matter has come before the Division Bench to resolve the question if statutory tenancy under the Orissa House Rent Control Act stands determined on the destruction of the house and the tenant ceases to be governed by the Act on the destruction of the house, D. P. Mohapatra, J. in Vishnu Deo Roy v. B. De. Souza and Anr., 65(1988) CLT 522, held that on the demolition of house, statutory tenancy did not stand determined. But at the hearing of this appeal, a statement from the judgment in Second Appeal No. 319 of 1980 decided on 14-9-1988 rendered by G. B. Pattnaik, J. to the following effect was relied upon :'...Tenancy can be determined by the landlord not on account of the default of the tenant in the matter of payment of rent but on account of the destruction of the structures itself as well as by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ... 'Having regard to the points formulated for decision in the paragraph-6 of the said judgment, i...
Maheswar Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR443
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. This petition assails the change of the Government decision in establishing a Primary Health Centre by stating that the same shall be located at Barapur under Basudevpur Block instead of Kharasahapur under Bahanaga Block. The decision to establish the Primary Health Centre at Kharasahapur during the financial year 1990-91 was taken on 5-1-1991. That decision required fulfilment of the following conditions ; (1) The local people should provide minimum one acre of land duly pledged in favour of the Panchayat Samiti for the medical institution within a period of one month from the date of issue of the order. (2) The local people should provide temporary accommodation for the medical institution as well as for the staff by 20-1-1991 for operationalisation of the institution. (3) The local people should provide permanent buildings for the medical institution as well as for the staff within six months from the date of issue of the order. The order further stated that if...
Nuanai Primary Fishermen Co-operative Society Vs. State of Orissa and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT36; 1992(I)OLR410
B.L. Hansaria, C.J. 1. The core question for determination in this application is whether Nuanai fishery sairat should be settled in favour of a multi-millionire as opp. party No. 5, M/s. Toshali Sands, a Division of T. K. International Ltd., happens to be, who is mainly interested in the area of the fishery sairat for developing a water sports complex to attract foreign tourists, or it should be settled in favour of bona fide co-operative societies consisting of genuine local fishermen who earn their livelihood by catching fish.2. This question has not come up before us for the first time inasmuch as a related matter presented itself to this Court in O. J. C. No. 2016 of 1989. In that case, Dusasan Pradhan, who was the petitioner, had been granted settlement of the aforesaid fishery sairat whereas Toshali Sands was permitted to develop water sports complex in the area. On not being able to enjoy his rights in respect of the fishery sairat, Dusasan Pradhan filed the aforesaid writ appl...
Banchhanidhi Mahapatra and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1739
ORDERJ.M. Mahapatra, J.1. Both the revisions filed by the accused persons in the complaint case bearing ICC 17 of 1983 and G.R. Case No. 1299/82, are directed against the order dated 25-3-1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Criminal Revisions Nos. 92 and 93 of 1986. The facts of the case and the points of law as also the parties in both the cases being common, both the matters have been heard together and this common judgment would govern both. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus : Opposite party No. 2 Susanta Kumar Hota lodged FIR on 29-10-82 at Berhampur Sadar Police Station alleging certain overtacts against eight persons who are included amongst the petitioners. The police investigated into the case and eventually submitted final report on 6-4-83. On perusal of the final report, refer notice and Case Diary, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 148, 324, 323 and 426/149, IPC. In the meantime opposit...
Ramesh Chandra Lath Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2263
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Order dated 23-7-1991 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh (in short the 'SDJM'), is subject-matter of challenge in these two applications.2. The order consists of two parts. By a petition, petitioner challenged cognizance taken, for alleged commission of offences under Sections 24 and 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the 'Act'). The petitioner's stand is that cognizance was taken beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reference was made to Section 27 of the Act. Time prescribed for taking cognizance of alleged offences is three months. Prayer was rejected by learned SDJM, on the ground that the proviso to Section 27 applies to the facts of the case. According to him, there was service of notice on the accused-petitioner whereby certain defects pointed out were directed to be rectified. He construed it to be a written order and held that offence related to non-compliance of a written order, and ...
Banifas Samad Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2271
L. Rath, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the same judgment in Sessions Trial No. 163/4 of 1986/87 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. All the appellants and two others namely Himanshu Patra and Janmejaya Rajhans were prosecuted Under Section 395, IPC read with Section 25-A of the Arms Act and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosive Act and another Siba Sahu was prosecuted Under Sections 412 and 414, IPC. All the appellants except Suren Kumra (Appellant No. 2 in J. Cr. A.7/89) were convicted under Section 395, IPC, Section 25-A of the Arms Act and Section 9-B of the Indian Explosive Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years Under Section 395, IPC and one year each under the other heads of charges with direction for the sentences to run concurrently. Suren Kumra was convicted Under Section 412, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years. While Criminal Appeal No. 298/88 has been preferred by Munna Naik and Barun Tandia, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 328/88 has be...
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Vs. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori47; 1992(I)OLR17
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This matter has come before this Full Bench to consider the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pranakrushna v. Umakanta Panda, AIR 1989 Orissa 148, laying down the rule that in a suit for declaration of title a transferee from the defendant pendente lite is neither a necessary nor a proper party and is not entitled to be impleaded inasmuch as he would be bound by the decree in the suit, having regard to the principles contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The motion of opposite parties 2 and 3, the purchasers pendente lite from opposite party No. 1 -- defendant, having been allowed by the Munsif, Puri, in Original Suit No. 169 of 1982, the plaintiff has moved this Court for revision of the said order on the ground that a purchaser pendente lite having regard to the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is neither a necessary nor a proper party under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the ...
Radhamohan Patra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori221; 73(1992)CLT431
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner who was one of the tenderers for the work 'widening and strengthening of N.H. 43 from K.M. 322/0 to 329/0 in the district of Koraput in Orissa' has moved this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution alleging that the opposite parties illegally did not consider the tender papers of the petitioner. The petitioner avers that the tender call notice was published in the daily 'Samaj' inviting tenders in prescribed form from the eligible registered special class contractors in respect of the work in question. Several details had been given in the notice itself and it was indicated that the completed tender documents in Cover-I and Cover-II should be received in the office of the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, by 3.00 p.m. on 28-6-1991 and Cover-I would be opened at 3.45 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 28-6-1991 in the presence of the tenderers or their authorised agents. It was specific...
Pravash Chandra Bachar Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1721
L. Rath, J.1. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of Clause 8(b) of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') and sentence to RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for a further period of one month has made him prefer this appeal.2. In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 8-12-86 while the appellant was having his grocery shop in the Weekly Shandy at Turudi, his shop was raided by the Supply Supervisor of Umerkote (P.W. 1) and he was found to have been in possession of 56 litres of kerosene kept in a half drum along with an empty tin container, two plastic funnels and measuring instruments of the capacity of one litre, 500 mls. 100 mls. and 50 mls. The appellant admitted of not possessing any licence to trade in kerosene. Kerosene found in his possession was seized under the seizure list Ext. 1 and was kept in the zima of P.W. 3. On P....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »