Orissa Court April 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.
Laxmi Dibya (Since Dead) and After Her Smt. SuvasIn Mohapatra Vs. Srid ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR12
P.C. Misra, J.1. The petitioner in this case has prayed to quash the revisional order passed by the Collector. Puri in O. E. A. Lease Revision No. 2 of 1979 (Annexure-5) and also for a direction to the Tahasildar, Puri to dispose of the dispute afresh as par the directions given by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Puri in O. E. A. Appeal No. 4 of 1976 (Annexure-4).After stating the facts and contentions of the parties, His Lordship found as follows :6. The petitioner claims that Mahania Gadadhar Ramanuja Das of Emar Math obtained a decree in the mortgaged Suit No. 244 of 1912 against Chakhi Suar, the grand-father of the opp parties and that he purchased the disputed plots in court sale. These facts have not been disputed. All that has been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the opp. parties is that no document has been produced to show that delivery of possession was effected pursuant to the court sale. Even then we are of the view that the title to the property wo'uld pass on to t...
Sri Rama Chandra Khera and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR32
L. Rath, J.1. A proceeding for supersession Under Section 32 (1) of the Orissa Co-operative Sorietjes Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') having been intiated against the Board of Management of Boipariguda LAMPS, a large size multipurpose co-operative society, the petitioner No. 1, the President of the Board and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, its members, have moved this Court for quashing the notice to show rause for supersession. The facts in the barest minimum are that the notice was issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Jeypore Circle on 28-12-1990 alleging certain acts of- mismanagement against the members and calling upon to file their reply within twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice. The show-cause was submitted on 17-1-1991 but the petitioners have moved the Court on 1-2-1991 alleging of having come to know of an order of supersession to be in the offing because of political pressure. The notice to show cause has_ been as...
Padma Kumar Bhawsinka Vs. State of Orissa, Represented Through the Sec ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT83; 1991CriLJ2512; 1991(I)OLR527
A. Pasayat, J.1. Personal liberty protected under Art. 27 of the Constitution is always held to be so sacrosant and so high in the scale of constitutional values that great anxiety for its protection has received expeditious attention. This liberty is by every reckoning the greatest of human freedoms and the laws of preventive detention receive strict const- ruction and mandate meticulous procedural safeguards, however, technical. The right to life, a basic human right assured by Art. 21 comprehends something more than more animal existence, i. e,, dignity of the individual, as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois : (197.6) 94 US 113. The question that arises in this writ application which is of seminel importance is- whether the order of detention can be questioned even before the execution thereof. As a corollary it fails for adjudication whether delay in execution can be a ground for invalidating it and if so under what circumstances.2. A preventive detention was held in Rex v....
Bimal Prasad Das Vs. Bijayananda Patnaik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori10
Hansaria, C.J. 1. A public-spirited advocate of the Orissa High Court Bar Association has filed this application challenging the call given by the Chief Minister, Orissa as published in daily newspapers of the State to beat corrupt officials; of course, after taking permission from him. The case of the petitioner is that this public call violates the basic structure of our Constitution and is against the rule of law. He seeks an injunction in this regard. 2. Learned Advocate-General contests the competence of the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this public interest litigation. According to him, the petitioner has taken up the cause of corrupt officers and does not possess any enforceable right, because of which he cannot be described as a 'person aggrieved'. It is submitted that as the present application is not meant for enforcing fundamental rights of those who have no adequate means of access to this Court and is not against violation of the Constitution or law resulting...
State of Orissa, Represented Through the Collector Vs. Sitaram Das and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR519
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The State of Orissa, represented by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, assails the order passed by the Subordinate Judge. Baripada refusing to accept the valuation of the property involved in an application for probate.2. The background facts shorn of unnecessary details are as follows.One Sitaram Das filed an application for probate in respect of a Will which was numbered as Probate Case No. 4 of 1988 (subsequently re-numbered as O. S. No. 138 of 1938) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada. The present opp. parties 2 to 12 were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. It appears their in terms of Section 19-H of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (in short 'the Act') notice of the application was given to the petitioner and the Collector. While the Collector was in seisin of the matter the defendants filed an application purported to be under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') and wanted to amend their written statement relating to the valua...
Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR497
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. Penalty amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,25,090/- was imposed on the petitioner Under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). He preferred a revision against the aforesaid order which is still pending. The petitioner has also been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 53,367/- towards interest because of late payment of the penalty. This has been assailed in this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Shri Das appearing for the petitioner has advanced two-fold contentions. The frist is that the petitioner was not at all liable to pay interest in view of what has been prescribed in Rule 16(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. His next submission is that, in any case, the interest could not have been asked to be paid till the disposal of the revision. As the argument is found on what has been prescribed in Rule 16(3) of the Rules, we may read that rule :'R. 16. Notice of demand :(1) xx xx xx(2) xx xx xx(3) In c...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagaban Bhuyan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC244; 1991ACJ726
A. Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (described hereinafter as the 'insurer') challenging the award passed by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short the 'Tribunal').2. The background in which this appeal has come before this court may be stated as follows:Respondent No. 1 lodged a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained by him on account of accident which took place on 25.5.1985, by a vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 3383 of which respondent No. 2 is the owner. According to the claimant, while he was proceeding on a cycle from Bhubaneswar to Utara in connection with his business activities, suddenly the offending vehicle came at a high speed from behind and dashed against him, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment, whereafter he was treated at his native place at Kamakshyanagar and subsequently he w...
Jankiram JaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR206
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in wholesale season rial goods like pulses, oil seeds, etc. which are declared commodities within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). He purchases these goods from the local market and effects sale of the goods, in course of inter-State trade. The goods purchased by the petitioner are taxed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act at the purchase point and the petitioner has paid taxes on the same. He has also to be taxed under the Act. Once the tax under the Act is paid, he gets refund of the taxes paid in Orissa under the Orissa Safes-Tax. Act. For the assessment years starting from 1974-75, the petitioner has been assessed to central safes tax. in those years, he was entitled to refund, but despite approaches being made the refunds have not been made, for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80- and 1981-82, the pefrtio- ner has been assessed to tax under the Act. Once the tax demanded is paid, he will be...
Biswanath Bhagat Vs. Ramananadalal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(I)OLR457
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner approached the House Rent Controller, Cuttack on 20-6-1988 seeking an. order of eviction against the opp. parties. A prayer for determination of fair rent was also made. Provisions of Sections 5, 7 (2) and (iii) and 7 (4) of the Orissa House_ Rent Control Act 1967 (hereinafter called, the Act') were invoked for these purposes. It may be stated that Section 5 of the Act deals with determination of fair rent; Section 7,(2)(i) permits eviction if the tenant be a wilful defaulter; Section 7 (2)(iii) allows a landlord to' obtain' possession if the tenant 'Has committed acts of damage as are likely to impair materially the;. value or utility of the house; and bec 7 (4)-authorises.a landlord to apply to the Controller seeking eviction of the tenant if the house is bona fide required for use and occupation of the landlord or any member of the family. As the Act which was a temporary statute had ceased to be in force with effect from 4-5-1983, it has be...
Benudhar Das and anr. Vs. Baburam Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori97; 71(1991)CLT834
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. An interesting question relating to the power of the Court to examine witness while dealings with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') requires resolution.2. By the impugned order the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara held that such scope did not exist, which has brought two of the defendants before this Court. The resolution does not very much depend on the factual controversy.3. The background in which the order was passed is that the plaintiffs who are opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in this revision application filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1990 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara, praying for a decree to declare that title over the suit land, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against four defendants (the two petitioners and opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5) and one Sachidananda Mohanty, defendant No. 5. They also filed an application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »