Orissa Court February 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.
Jagannath Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Banarasi Debi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 2002(I)OLR196
A. Pasayat, J.1. This is an application questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sub ordinate Judge. Puri, holding that the petitioner's application to set aside the order setting them ex parte and for acceptance of the written statement filed by them was not maintainable.2. A brief advertance to the factual antecedents is necessary to put the controversy in its proper perspective.The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in a suit filed by present opposite party No. 1. The present opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were defendants 4 to 7 in the suit. The suit was filed on 2.1.1990 and the present petitioners were held to have refused the summons offered to them and on 25.1.1990 the matter was adjourned to 30.1.1990 for proving service of notice. On 3.2.1990. the petitioners 1 and 2 appeared and prayed for time to file written statement. The matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the plaintiff to prove service as against defendant No. 3. the present petitioner No. 3...
Giridhari Kalsai Vs. Raibari Saharani Alias Raibari Bhoiani and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR366
A. Pasayat, J.1. Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits is the appellant . In this appeal against a reversing Judgment.2. According to the plaintiff, he and his brother defendant No. 7 Samaru, were reversioners and were entitled to the properties which were owned and possessed by late Chai, The learned Munsif, Bargarh framed four issues and came to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit land after eviction of defendant No. 1 therefrom; the sale deeds executed in favour of some of the defendants were invalid. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh held that the plaintiff and defendant No, 7 were reversioners in respect of the properties of late Chai and their right, title and interest in respect of part of the suit land, i.e., except those which were sold to defendant Ho. 1, her husband and . defendant No. 3. It is relevant to mention here that objection was raised to ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Mazid and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ578
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. On 31.7.1986 at about 9.30 p.m. while claimant was going back to his residence, bus bearing registration number OSU 6390 knocked him down while being driven rashly and negligently. Claimant sustained various injuries including fracture on his right hip joint and nasal bone. He had to remain under traction of his right leg from 31.7.1986 to 3.8.1986. Thereafter, boot and bar plaster was made. On account of the accident, he permanently became lame. Alleging the same, claimant prayed for an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.3. Owner of the bus remained ex parte. The insurer appellant contested the claim. Appreciating materials on record, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment is made. Insurer has filed the appeal being aggrieved by the award.4. Claimant after notice has entered appearance an...
Judhistira Nayak and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR291
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-3-1987 of the learned 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, convicting the petitioner Judhistira Naik (P-1) Under Section 324, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and convicting the petitioner Ratnakar Naik (P-2) Under Section 326, I. P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, while setting aside the conviction of both the petitioners Under Section 307, I. P. C. passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case may be stated as follows. Both the petitioner and members of the prosecution party, namely, P. Ws. 1, 7 and 6 are the adjoining land owners having a common ridge in between their fields running from north to south. The prosecution party purchased their land lying to the east from one Ajit Kumar Sur, and the petitioners were Bhag Chasis under Ajit Sur in respect of the lands possessed by the petitio...
Jhula Sahu Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR267
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-2-1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack maintaining the conviction of the petitioner Under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and the sentence of six months' R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/- thereunder2. Briefly stated prosecution case is that on 2 3-8-1985 the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of five litres o I. D. liquor contained in a plastic jar. He was detected by the patrol party consisting P. W. 2 the S. I. of Excise, Sadar-A, Cuttack and P. W. 1, the S. I. of Sadar Mobile, Cuttack. After conducting different tests, P. W. 2 found the substance in the custody of the petitioner to be I. D. liquor. Thereafter the Liquor was seized and prosecution submitted against the petitioner.3. The plea of the petitioner at the trial was one of total denial of his complicity in the crime.4. In support of its case prosecution has examined three witnesses of whom P. Ws 1 and 2 are t...
Shree Durga Glass (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC193
L. Rath, J.1. An application made on 14.3.1982 for refund of excess duty paid having remained undisposed of, the petitioners have come before this Court seeking redress. The facts leading to the writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1, a manufacturer of glass-wares, filed six classification lists effective from May 1978 to April 1979 which lists were purported to be accepted by the order of the Assistant Collector dated 28.8.1980 (Annexure-5). By virtue of the acceptance of the classification lists the petitioner No. 1's liability to pay excise duty was accepted at 20% instead of 35% which was ordinarily payable since the Assistant Collector accepted the petitioner's plea of having adopted the manufacturing process of manually operated press having tank furnaces (hereinafter referred to as 'the manual process'). Such reduced tariff was payable in accordance with the Notification No. 329/77 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 26.11.197...
Hemamani SwaIn and ors. Vs. Kulamani SwaIn and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR377
L. Rath, J.1. These three cases arise out of the same order of the Consolidation Commissioner and relate to the same questions of fact and law and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The order passed in revision cases by the Consolidation Commissioner remanding the cases to the -Consolidation' Officer for effecting a fair partition amongst the parties as indicated by him, overruling the case- of the petitioners that there had been a previous partition amongst the parties effected by a registered deed of partition on 27-7-1948, has led the petitioners to come before this Court assailing the order. For an appreciation of the facts involved in the case, the genealogy of the parties is necessary to be referred to and is as follows:Genealogy-----------Ghana|-----------| |Nilakantha Govinda| |Dharmu Gopi| |Harihar -------------------------(Pet. 1) | | |Udaya Arjuna Kanhu| (Pet. No. 2) (O.P. No. 3)|----------------------| |Kula Krushna(O.P. No. 1) (O.P. NO. 2)It was the case of the...
Regional Director, Esic Vs. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central D ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ253Ori; 1991(I)OLR362
L.Rath, J.1. Proceedings initiated under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.P.D.R. Act') at the instance of the petitioner for realisation of the dues determined by him from the opposite party No. 4 having been thrown out by the authorities under the O.P.D.R. Act, the petitioner has come before this Court.2. The facts stated in a nutshell are that certain dues were determined under Section 45A by the petitioner under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I.Act') as being payable by the opposite party No. 4 in respect of contributions of himself and employees, but since the dues remained unpaid they were purported to be collected as arrears of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of Section 45B of the E.S.I. Act. The Certificate Proceedings was resisted by the opposite party No. 4 taking the stand that in a complaint case instituted against him by the petitioner (registered as 2(c) C.C.Case No...
Pankamajhi Dholia Vs. Duri Mai and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR113
L. Rath, J.1. A petitioner at the instance of the opposite party No. 1 under Regulation 2 of 1956 against the petitioner in respect of the land purported to have been purchased by him from Nira Baliarsingh having been allowed and the possession of the land having been directed to be restored to the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner has approached this Court after having been unsuccessful also in appeal against the original order. The proceeding was initiated on the report of the Revenue Inspector reporting that the disputed land belonged to the husband of the opposite party No. 1 but was being illegally possessed by the petitioner. The case was called on 11-5-1976 when both parties appeared before the Tahasildar and the Special Officer. While it was the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the land beloged to her and she had given the land on mortgage to the petitioner, it was the petitioner's case that he had purchased the land from Nira Baliarsingh through registered sale deed. B...
Dayanidhi Khilla Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 71(1991)CLT832; 1991(I)OLR207
ORDERA.K. Padhi, J.1. Heard counsel for both the sides.2. The petitioner had filed an application for bail. The offence for which the petitioner accused has been arrested Under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and punishment for such contravention is imprisonment for five years. Though in the original application the ground had not been taken, the petitioner now urges that he having been in custody for more than 60 days and no prosecution Report hiving been submitted, he is entitled to bail Under Section 167(2) Proviso, of Cr. P. C. It is also submitted that by virtue of Sec 36-A(c) and 36-C, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail as no prosecution Report has been filed within 60 days from the date of arrest.Sec 36-A, N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 reads as follows:'Offence triable by Special Courts.__(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)_xx xx xx(c) the Special Court may exercise, in r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »