Orissa Court July 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.
Sk. Zaharul Islam Vs. Umakanta Khadiratna and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1869
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question correctness of order dated 6-4-1991 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack (in short 'SDJM') refusing to accept the prayer made under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') and Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), to issue search warrant for search and seizure of certain alleged materials in the nature of infringement of copyright of an almanac.2. The learned SDJM refused the prayer on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass order for search and seizure.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate had power to issue direction to the police official who under Section 64 of the Act is authorised to effect seizure. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties, however, submits that Section 64 makes it apparently clear that specified police officer is competent to effect any seizure of infringing copies. Therefore, the...
Rakesh Kumar Gupta @ Kausel Kumar Singh (Accused in Jail Custody) Vs. ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR472
ORDERB.N. Dash, J.1. The defect pointed out by the office be ignored2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Add!. Public Prosecutor.3. This is an application for bail Under Section 439, Cr. P. C. The petitioner was arrested on 2-2-1991 for having committed an offence Under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and was forwarded to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kotpad. Charge-sheet was admittedly not submitted within sixty days from the date of arrest and after submission of charge-sheet the petitioner moved for bail Under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. (for short 'the Code') which was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 27 of 1991 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore which was ultimately heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision holding that by the time the bail was moved, charge-sheet had al...
Rabindra Kumar SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1868
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. The petitioner assails the judgments of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore and affirmed in appeal by the lea~rned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore.2. The petitioner stood charged for having dishonestly misappropriated primary gold, gold and silver ornaments, cash and other valuable properties worth around Rs. 1,50,000/- while he was in charge of Malkhana of Judicial Courts at Jeypore and acted as a Malkhana Clerk.As many as 46 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case and volumnious documents were pressed into service by the prosecution. The primary stand of the petitioner was that there was no entrustment of the articles in question and therefore, the question of his having misappropriated them did not arise. The learned trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty, convicted him under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment an...
State of Orissa Vs. Brindaban Sharma
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori86
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These two appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise out, of two references made under Section 18 of the Act filed by State of Orissa. No cross-objection has been filed by claimant.2. Lands of claimant were acquired on basis of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the year 1962-63 and possession was taken on 31-3-1963. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 169 dated 18-2-1967. Land Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of the Act and offered compensation to the respondent @ Rs. 400/-per acre calculating the same on the basis of transactions of similar land in the village on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as revealed from the award under Section 11 of the Act. Claimant who received compensation under protest sought for a reference to Court to determine market value under Section 18 of the Act since h...
Sri Bauribandhu Mohanty and anr. Vs. Sri Suresh Chandra Mohanty and or ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori136
ORDERK.C. Jagdeb Roy, J.1. In these two Civil Revisions, the petitioners challenged the orders of the Munsif, Jagatsinghpur dated 19-8-89 and dated 9-8-89 respectively rejecting the applications of the plaintiffs to recall P. W. 7 and D.W. 5 for further examination in relation to some admission, made in the compromise petition filed on 5-3-82 but was not acted upon. The Court has rejected the application stating that such applications could not be allowed in view of Section 23 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act').2. The short facts leading to the present Civil Revisions are as follows :The present petitioners along with Opposite Party No. 3 had filed the suit bearing No. 64 of 1981 before the learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur against the present Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with a prayer to declare that they had acquired their right of easement in respect of the Schedule-C land of the plaint schedule and to restrain the Opposite Parties by way of injunction not to interfere with their pea...
Allied Agencies and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1991
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ215Ori
Hansaria, C.J. 1. The question for determination in this writ application is whether certain M/s. Allied Agencies, M/s. Industrial Brush Manufacturing Company and M/s. Sahoo Chemicals can be regarded to form part of one establishment for the purpose of determining whether they come within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). It is an admitted position that if these concerns were not to form part of one establishment, the total number of employees engaged by them would not be 20 because of which the Act would not apply to them. Though there is some dispute that even if these concerns are treated to form part of one establishment, the total number of employees would not come to 20, but then, this being a disputed question of fact and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner having come to the conclusion on the basis of materials available to him that these concerns at the relevant time had employed 21 persons, we wou...
Golbadan Majhi Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3261
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh convicting the appellant under Sections 449 and 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him respectively to undergo R.I. for five years and imprisonment for life.2. Put briefly the facts of the case are these. The appellant and the deceased are separated brothers and living in the same village in adjoining houses. P.W. 1 is the widow of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the mother of both the appellant and the deceased. A few months prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant had spent some money for the deceased for his treatment in Burla Medical College Hospital. The appellant continued to ask the deceased to pay back the money, and the deceased was expressing his inability to pay. On this issue there used to be frequent quarrals between the two brothers. On 5-8-1986 in the morning hours at about 6.30 a.m., while the deceased had sat in front of the burning harth, the a...
P. Madhusudan Rao Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1864
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Accused No. 1 is petitioner against appellate order confirming direction to confiscation of property Under Section 452, Cr. P.C.2. Petitioner was tried for an offence Under Sections 379 and 411, IPC as a piece of precious stone was found in his possession for which he could not account for and his movement was found to be suspicious near bus stand of Sonepur. Accused took the defence that he is an Advocate from Andhra Pradesh. Coming to know that precious stones are available in Bolangir district of Orissa, he came with the precious stone as a sample. He went to Birmaharajpur in search of such stone but could not find. On return while he was moving with the other accused, he was called to police station after which he was prosecuted.3. During trial, petitioner examined himself and proved a receipt in support of his purchase of the precious stone. Though trial court did not accept the receipt and was not satisfied about the ownership of the precious stone, peti...
Chakradhar Sahu Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-23-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3248
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-5-87 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. Put briefly, the facts of the case are these. The appellant and the deceased belonged to the same village Dumermunda, P.S. Lanjigarh in the district of Kalahandi, and there was bad blood between both the families on account of purchase of certain lands by the father of the appellant from the father of the deceased. The appellant and his family were in cultivating possession of the said land. The deceased had never cultivated that land, but he was, however, threatening the appellant with dire consequences for his possessing the land in question. On the material date, 18-6-86 at about 10 a.m., the deceased came to the disputed land and found that the land was being cultivated by Hrushikesh, the elder brother of the appellant with the help of some labourers. He reb...
Nabakishore Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori303
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioners assail correctness of the order dated 10-5-1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, rejecting the prayer of plaintiffs for an order that the counter-claim filed by the defendants was to be excluded, as the claim raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit in terms of rule 6-C of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code').2. The refusal was made on the following background. Petitioners as plaintiffs have filed Title Suit No. 170 of 1987 which is pending adjudication in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. During pendency of the suit, defendant No. 3 filed an application for amendment of the written statement filed inter alia on the ground that he wants to set up a counterclaim in terms of Order 8, Rule 6C of the Code. The plaintiffs objected to the prayer for modification which was nevertheless allowed. After the counter-claim was admitted and the iss...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »