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.
Raghunath Mukhi Vs. Chakrapani Mukhi (Dead) and After Him Musa Bewa an ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT438; 1992(I)OLR191
R.C. Patnaik, J.1. Upon publication of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, every suit and proceeding for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area, proceeding pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal, reference or revision, is to stand abated on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court concerned. Section 51 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in regard to matters relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying within the consolidation area which ordinarily under the general civil law would be cognisable by them.2. The Act has created a hierarchy of forums for determination of the questions--original, appellate and revisional, the highest being the revisional Court. In matters of civil dispute and the civil law, the District Judge or the Subordinate Judge, as the case may be, dependi...
Jadu Alias Jadua Bhoi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2117
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for release of the (petitioner who has been undergoing sentences on account of convictions in different trials. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was taken to custody on 10-5-1982 and was tried in S.T. No. 3/94 of 1982 on account of occurrence on 4-1-1982 for offences Under Sections 395 and 397, IPC. In that case he was convicted and sentenced by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, on 7-10-1983 to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1983 which was dismissed by this Court on 10-12-1990. While undergoing such sentence he was also tried in S.T. No. 15/127 of 1983 in respect of an occurrence on 3-1-1983 Under Section 457 and 395, IPC and was convicted and sentenced by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri, on 12-7-1984 to undergo R.I. for five years. He also stood a third trial Under Section 457 and 392, IPC in ST Case No. 25/174 of 1984 for an occur...
Ramakanta Das Vs. Gita Devi Choudhury
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ori279; 1991(II)OLR354
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This case brings forth the general impression that in this country difficulty of a litigant starts after getting a favourable decree/order. Civil Revision petition filed by the judgment-debtor is directed against the order passed by First Munsif, Cuttack on 19-3-81 in Execution Case No. 254 of 1988 rejecting the plea that the decree-holder is not entitled to execute the decree.2. The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :The original decree holder, Akhaya Kumar Behera, obtained an order from the House Rent Controller, Cuttack for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, 183 decimals of land under two plots, 72 decimals in plot No. 1251, 111 decimals in plot No. 1252 and a pucca house standing on a portion of it, under Khata No. 360 in Mouza Unit No. 16, Bisinabar which is a part of Cuttack town. He filed Execution Case No. 254 of 1988 in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack to execute the said eviction o...
Madhusudan Sahoo and ors. Vs. Basudev Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1359
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In this revision petition the accused persons have assailed the appellate judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1985 confirming the decision of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara (S.D.J.M.) in I.C.C. No. 156 of 1983 and convicting them under Sections 323/379 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-on each Court.2. On the complaint filed by the opposite party the aforementioned case was registered. The case of the complainant in a nut-shell was that shortly before the incident which gave rise to the present case, the accused persons had forcibly entered his house, damaged the door frames, cot, etc. His brother had sent him a telegram about the incident and had lodged a report at the police station. On getting the information, the complainant who was working at Choudwar in a stationery shop started for his house. On 12-5-198...
National Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Panda Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ori297
K.C. Jagdeb Roy, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge, Angul dated 22-12-1990 passed in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990.2. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act before the Subordinate Judge, Angul with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Arbitrators.(a) to take up the arbitrabllity, maintainability of the claims raised by the claimant-Opp. Party No. I M/s. Panda Engineering Works Private Limited as preliminary hearing and direct Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3, the Arbitrators to take up issues Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 38 as preliminary issues. (b) to decide the scope ambit and effect of clause 20 and clause 10 of the General Conditions of Contract between the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 1, (c) to hold that the claims raised by the claimant-Opposite Party No. 1 before the learned Arbitrators are not maintainable, arbitrable and not within the scope of t...
Rama Dei and anr. Vs. Madhabananda Pradhan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR432(Orissa); 1991(II)OLR215
P.C. Misra, J.1. The defendants in Title Suit No. 67 of 1983 are the petitioners in this revision. By the impugned order, the court rejected the contentions of the defendants made in an application for preliminary hearing on issue No. 11. Issue No. 11 is to the following effect : 'Whether the suit is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.'2. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property on the allegation that the same was purchased by him in the name of defendant No. 1, who happens to be his wife who deserted him about 10 years back. Defendant No. 1 hastransferred the said property, in favour of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff alleges that he would not be bound by the said transfer. The defendants, in their written statement, have raised a plea that, in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the suit is not maintainable. In view of these pleadings, issue No. 11 as quoted above has been framed.3. The learned cour...
Dhaneswar Mallik and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1711; 1991(II)OLR68
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. A case rare in its nature having come to notice in this revision, the same is disposed of with reasons at the stage of admission.2. Champabati lodged information in Jajpur Road Police-station that Dharanidhar (accused) and others kidnapped her daughter Kumari Minati on 5-9-1989 at about 10 A. M. in a car and at the time of interception by her two sons Padmalochan and Trilochan, they were threatened of assault by accused persons Registering it as First Information Report, police conducted investigation. In course of investigation, petitioners were examined and their statements were recorded Under Section 161, Cr. P. C. From these statements it is revealed that petitioners were witnesses to occurrence. Charge-sheet having been filed against five accused persons, petitioners filed an application before learned Judicial Magistrate to record their statements Under Section 164, Cr. P. C,, since they did not implicate accused Jitendra to have participated in the crime and...
Cuttack Municipality, Through Its Executive Officer Vs. Madanlal Kaman ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR38
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Casusiness of Municipal authorities in prosecuting the offenders has given rise to this revision Under Section 397, Cr. P. C.2. Opp. parties have a house in Cuttack Town which is within the area constituting municipality under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (heien- after referred to as 'the Act'). On 17-11-1982, a complaint was filed by Pitambar Parida, Amin of the Municipality being authorised by the Executive Officer against the opp. parties alleging that on 17-2-1982 it was first detected that the persons complained against had commenced the construction/reconstruction of two pucca latrines septic tank and soak pit adjacent to the well. This complaint petition is in a printed proforma where various columns have been filled up by typing and many of the columns remained without filling up the vacant portion or even scoring them out. There is no. explanation why there was delay of more than nine months after detection to file the complaint. Be that as it may, learn...
The Collector, Cuttack Vs. Saraswati Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ori274; 1991(II)OLR1
L. Rath, J.1. These revisions have come before us by way of reference to a larger Bench by one of us substantially on the question as to whether the benefit of S. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') increasing the solatium and the rate of interest is available to awards which are passed by the Subordinate Judge during the period 30-4-1982 to 24-9-1984 on remand from the High Court but in which cases the original awards had been passed prior to 30-4-1982.2. A brief narration of facts is necessary to illustrate the question raised. The notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were issued on different dates during 1964. The awards were made by the Land Acquisition Officer during 1970 and 1971 determining the valuation of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and granting 15% solatium and 6% interest. On reference made to the Subordinate Judge under S...
Suchitra @ Sachindra Sahoo Vs. Smt. Basanti Sahoo and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC45; 1991(II)OLR162
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.2. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr, P;C. interim maintenance at Rs. 200/ per month was granted by the learned Magistrate when a proceeding was pending before him. An application was filed before learned Magistrate by appellant to pay the arrears of Rs. 2000/-on 12-3-1991 which was grants. At that stage proceeding has been transferred to Family Court. Before the Family Court, an application was filed by appellant for granting time on the ground that he is ill. Since the appellant was not present to press the petition, the same was rejected by the Family Court. On rejection of application non-bailable warrant of arrest and distress warrant are directed to be issued against appellant and his bailor. This is grievance of the appellant.3. Under Section 13 of the Act, right of parties to be represented by the legal practitioner is taken away. However, if Family Court considers it to be necessary in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »