Orissa Court May 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.
Gatikrushna Behera Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR55
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. In this application under-Art 26 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to quash the order cancelling lease granted in his favour under the Orissa Minor and Minerals Concession Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. Case of petitioner is that he applied for lease to remove sand from River Ramial in villages Mahulpal and Rekula. Tahasildar who is the competent authority granted lease of Act. 29-75 decimals of land in the river in these two villages for removal of sand. Lease is for five years commencing from the date of lease. Against this order opp. party No. 5 preferred an appeal under Rule 29. He applied for interim stay of the order. Sub-Collector who is the appellate authority while granting stay directed that by way of interim measure, the area should be put to annual auction. Petitioner preferred a revision to the Collector under Rule 29(2). Revisional authority granted stay. However, on final hearing, the annual auction amount being ...
Paradip Port Trust Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT290(Ori)
D.M. Patnaik J.1. The petitioners in both the cases assail the order dated 17-12-1976 of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar in imposing penalty of Rs. 1000/- on petitioner No. 2 in each case for violation of the provisions under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the 'Act'). The penalty has been imposed as prescribed under Section 117 of the Act.2. Facts in brief.Petitioner No. 1 is the Paradip Port Trust and petitioner No. 2 Shri B.D. Naygandhi (in O.J.C. No. 91/77) at the relevant time, was the Traffic Manager whose normal duty was to allot berths U the vessels coming to the Port and petitioner No. 2 Shri V.L. Choudhury (in O.J.C. No. 155/77) was the Deputy Conservator of the Port.The Vessel M.V. JAGDARSHAN arrived at the Port on 29-3-1976. The Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, having received information that the vessel was being used as a conveyance for disposal of foreign imported prohibited articles, exercised his power under Se...
The Managing Director, Orissa State Cashewnut Development Corporation ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori35
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. These two civil revisions are interlinked and, therefore, and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The background facts are that tenders were invited by the petitioner, a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, for collection of cashewnuts and apples from Jogia Hill Plantation in Ganjam district. Opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenderer') submitted his tender and after acceptance was required to make certain deposits towards the collection price. An agreement was entered into incorporating terms of the contract. According to the tenderer, because of either inaction or delayed action of the petitioner-corporation the contract became frustrated and therefore, he demanded return of his deposits. Since the corporation did not respond to the notices issued, a demand for appointment of an arbitrator was made as per Clause (8) of the agreement. The said notice is stated to have been received by the corporation on 13-7-1988, ...
Cudise Trinath Rao Vs. Sudhansu Prasad Padni and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori168
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. The challenge in this civil revision is to the order passed by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Gajam, Barthampur allowing a prayer for amendment made by the plaintiff.2. The factual backdrop is as follows :--In a suit for specific performance of contract, an application was filed by the plaintiff for insertion of an averment to the effect that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and to add that being involved in a series of litigations and in order to liquidate certain statutory liability, an agreement for transfer of property was entered into, to raise funds for legal necessity. The learned Addl. Subordinate Judge came to hold that though the petition was filed at a belated stage, yet considering that the hearing of the suit had not commenced, the amendment was to be allowed. Therefore, he accepted the prayer for amendment, subject to payment of cost of Rupees 100/-. The legality of the order is assailed primarily ...
Goura Charan Das Vs. Bhagirathi Srichandan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ori326
A. Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is by one of the appellants, before the lower appellate court, whose application under Order 41, Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') to restore Title Appeal No. 43/97 of 1982/1981 was dismissed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Puri.2. The background facts are that the appeal was posted to 17-7-1985 when the lawyer for the appellants filed a petition for adjournment on the ground that a petition for transfer of the case from the court of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Puri was pending. The petition was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as the Advocate did not argue the matter. A petition for restoration of the appeal was filed and the same was rejected on the ground that when the matter was taken up, the lawyer for the appellant did not address the Court and it was sufficient for the Court to pass an order of dismissal and it does not necessarily mean that the appeal was dismissed for default of app...
Jogi Sahu and anr. Vs. Collector, Cuttack
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ori283; 1991(II)OLR164
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Mistaken advice by lawyers have sometimes resulted in disastrous consequences, and the case at hand is one classic example.2. Certain lands owned by the petitioners were acquired for expansion of the Central Rice Research Institute in Cuttack pursuant to a notification published in the official gazette by the State of Orissa on 2-9-1971. The Collector, Cuttack passed award quantifying the entitlement of the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per acre. The award made by the Collector was not accepted and on a dispute being raised the matter was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. Due to non-appearance of the petitioners on 10-4-1975, the matter was disposed of by the reference Court with the following order :'O.P. files hazira. Petitioners take no steps. Hence the award of L.A. Collector is confirmed. Misc. Case is dismissed.'Therefore, a series of petitions were filed for restoration, some under Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in...
Kataki Dei and anr. Vs. Hema Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ori286
ORDER1. These two civil revisions are directed against an order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. He disposed of two applications by the said order, one of which was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment and the other filed by the defendants for abatement of the suit. Both the applications were rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. I shall first deal with the application for amendment. Petitioners in Civil Revision No. 975 of 1989 have filed the suit for a declaration that (a) the defendants have not acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property on the strength of the document dated 18-1-1990; and (b) for a decree to restrain the defendants permanently in interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The petitioners prayed for deletion of their prayer (a) and for substitution in its place a prayer to the effect that the document styled as deed of gift purported to have been executed by Osi Dei in favour of ...
Dharmananda Behera and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR26
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. This is an application by the villagers of Bhagatpur within the limits of Kanheipur Cram Panchayat assailing .the decision of the Government as conveyed by letter dated 10-10-1990 Arnthexure-3 that both the cattle markets at Tangi (Kotsahi Gram Panchayat) and the Bharatpur cattle market within Kanheipur Gram Panchayat may sit on the same day of the week, i e., Tuesday.2. Protracted controversy between the Kanheipur Gram Panchayat and Kotsahi Cram Panchayat was resolved by the Collector, Cuttack, on an appeal Under Section 146(2) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act which was filed against the decision dated 23-3-1978 of the Tangi Choudwar Panchayat Samiti. He decided in G, P.- Appeal No. 7 of 1978 after hearing the both sides and taking into consideration the farts and circumstances that Tangi cattle market should operate on a day other than Tuesday and Bharatpur cattle market should operate on Tuesday as usual. Writ applications (OJC Nos. 2483/83 and 1196/84) filed in t...
BhagyalaxmIn @ Laxmi Chundi Vs. Pata Krushna
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR59
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court in revision seeking reversal of the order passed by the S. D. J. M. refusing to take cognisance and issue process against the opp. party Under Section 376/406, IPC, on the complaint filed by her. lt was her case that she was called by the opp. party to his house on the pretext of his wife having called her but reaching there she found the wife of the opp party to be absent. The opp. party forcibly raped her and thereafter took her to the hospital on the apprehension of she hiving conceived and thereafter again raped her. The contact between the parties continued the opp. party having promised the petitioner to marry her and it is alleged that the opp. party thereafter persuaded the petitioner to bring Rs. 2,000/- and a necklace. Information lodged by the father of the petitioner and police rescued the petitioner from the house of the opp. party. It was the further complaint case that the petitioner and the opp. party had been to th...
Shrimati Sabitri Devi Vs. Banambar Rout and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR192
A. Pasayat, J.1. This is the second journey of the plaintiff to this Court in respect of an application for deputation of a Pleader Commissioner under Order 28, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure1908 (in short the 'CPC').2. The plaintiff prayed for deputation of a Pleader Commissioner to find out about existence of windows on the western side rooms of the plaintiff adjacent to the eastern wall of the defendants. When the prayer was first refused, the matter was the subject-matter of adjudication in Civil Revision No. 225 of 1991, which was disposed of with a direction to the learned Munsif to consider whether the prayer can be granted. At that time the petition was rejected on the ground that the trial had reached at the fag end there was no justifiable reason to accept the prayer. The direction as aforesaid was given since the submission of the defendants-opp. parties was to the effect that the Court on consideration of the fact that evidence had already been led, was satisfied abo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »