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.
Banalata Parida and anr. Vs. Banshidhar Das and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR335
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Whether the legal representatives of one of the plaintiffs in a suit, can press into service Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as parties after rejection of their application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code is the small but vexed question that falls for determination in this revision.2. The suit out of which this revision arises was one for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative recovery of possession and correction of record-of-rights. Plaintiff 1 is the son of plaintiff 2. On the death of plaintiff 2, his widow and two married daughters filed an application on 14-11-1985 for amendment of plaint and impletion as plaintiffs. The trial Court construed the application as one under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code, for substitution and disallowed the same on 3-3-1986 as not having been made within time, sine plaintiff 2 died on 6-6-1984. Then the widow died. Thereafter on 23-3-1987 the two da...
Chila Bewa Vs. Hrusikesh @ Harekrishna Nayak and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1991
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR34
A. Pasayat, J.1. Order dated 11-12-1987 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Jajpur Road, restraining the petitioner from creating any disturbance over the present possession of the opposite parties is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application.2. Petitioner claims to be widow of one Babaji Nayak. According to her, the disputed property along with some other undisputed property were acquired by aforesaid Babajj. The disputed lands were the lease-hold lands recorded in the name of one Rebati Nayak. They were reclaimed by Babaji, who was in possession thereof since long. After the death of Babaji, the petitioner is the sole heir to inherit the property. She was in peaceful possession of the disputed lands long since to the knowledge of all concerned and was also paying rent to the State. The opposite parties herein who were members of the second party are related to the petitioner and taking advantage of her helpless condition interfered with her smooth and peaceful poss...
Bajiram Panda Vs. the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Represented by It ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR258
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This revision arises out of an order refusing the prayer to amend the plaint. Plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1987 for declaration of his right over the suit land of which the sketch was attached to the plaint and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interrupting with his peaceful possession. He obtained temporary injunction. Suit was posted to 20-8-1987 for settlement of issues. When the suit was heard on settlement of issues on that date plaintiff could have known the deficiencies in the plaint which he seeks to remove now by amendment He did not take any step at that stage and issues were settled. Suit was posted for hearing on 25-11-1987. For getting ready in hearing of the suit, plaintiff could have known deficiency if any in the plaint also. At that stage no step was taken. Lastly, on 16-4-1990 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint which having been rejected on 25-4-1990 by the impugned order, this Civil Revision has ...
Biswambar Pattanaik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR376
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force with effect from 12-3-1973 and on completion of training was posted in its Steel Plant Unit, Rourkela.2. In contemplation of a departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of the Commandant, CISF Unit, opp. party No. 2 with effect from 9-4-1984 by order dated 9-4-1984. The petitioner was supplied with the statement of articles of charge and the statement of Imputation of misconduct by memo dated 3-6-1984. It was mentioned in the said memo that an inquiry would ' be held only in respect of those articles of charge which are not admitted and required the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence within seven/ten days of the receipt of the memo. The petitioner however submitted his written statement of defence on 20-9-1984 as per Annexure-4 of this writ application.3. As it appears from the written statement of defence of the petitione...
i.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. S.R. Tamma and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR313
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The petitioner has assailed in this petition the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal passed in a proceeding Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The law relating to this proceeding is well-settled by now in such a matter, the Tribunal has initially limited jurisdiction only to fee whether a prima facie case is made out in respect of the misconduct charged This is, however, the position only when the domestic enquiry preceding the order of dismissal is free from any defect, that is to say, free from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice If, on the other hand, there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal will give an opportutity to the employer to produce evidence, if any, and also to the workman to rebut it if he so chooses. In the latter event, the Tribunal will be entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on merits on the evidence produced before it with regard to the pro...
Subhash Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Ori44
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The Secretary of Prasannamani College of Physical Education & Yoga at Tigiria in the district of Cuttack filed an application in a disposal of writ application O.J.C. No. 706 of 1991 filed at his instance for permitting the students of the said College to appear at the B.P.Ed. Examination of the year 1991. The Government had granted concurrence to the College for B.P.Ed. Course only for 1988-89 and as so further concurrence was granted for the next year 1989-90 and necessarily as the University did not grant affiliation, a writ application was filed in this Court in O.J.C. No. 1830 of 1990 with the prayer that the students may be permitted to appear at the B.P.Ed. Examination of the year 1990. In that writ application, a miscellaneous application being filed for grant of interim relief, the learned Vacation Judge directed that the students who underwent the Course shall be allowed to take the examination but the results of the said examination shall not be published ...
Madhab Bagh Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC626; 1992CriLJ116
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner assails conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bissam, Cuttack confirmed, in appeal by learned Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore.2. Petitioner stood trial under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and 118-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the 'MV Act'). According to prosecution, on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, truck bearing registration No. ORR 1291 dashed against one Purna Chandra Pradhan, who suffered serious injuries and subsequently breathed his last in the Christian hospital, Bissam, Cuttack.3. Several witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case, and on evaluation of evidence, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He specifically referred to the evidence of the M.V.I. (P.W. 11). Learned Magistrate held that offences were clearly established and.therefore, convicted the...
Santosh Kumar Padhy and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-11-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ750
ORDERD.M. Patnaik, J.1. The above two revisions having arisen out of a common appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore are being disposed of by this common order.2. One Bighnaraj Tripathy was the Sharistadar and Santosh Kumar Padhy, a Clerk and one Lokanath Mohanty Process Server in the office of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umarkote in Koraput district. All of them faced their trial under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Penal Code').The Subordinate Judge-cum-Magistrate, First Class, Jeypore by his judgment dated 17-1-86 acquitted accused Bighnaraj Tripathy but convicted accused Santosh Kumar Padhy under Sections 465/468/471 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 471 of the Penal Code. Both the sentences ...
Buti Domb and anr. Vs. Suti Domb
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR180
A. Pasayat, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of 'learned Addl. Sessions judge, Koraput, jeypore confirming an order of conviction and sentence awaided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kotpad. teamed Magistrate found the petitioners guilty under Secs. 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 (in short the 'Code'), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months There was also a direction out of fine amount if realised, a sum of Rs. 100/- was to be paid to the complinant as compensation. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge on analysis of evidence held that bona fide claim over property in question was not established and therefore, offence Under Section 379/34 of the Code was clearly made out. It was held by learned Migistrate that petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ( in short the 'Probation Act'), The learned Addl Sessions Judge has not dealt with this aspect specifically, but has held that sentence wa...
Satyendra Shyam Nag Vs. Bankim Chandra Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(II)OLR305
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner who is defendant No. 1 assails correctness of the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore permitting the plaintiff (opp. party No. 1) to withdraw a suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The motion was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that such liberty ought not to be granted in the circumstances of the case It was specifically brought to the notice of Court that the suit had already been dismissed against defentant Nos. 2 and 3 for non-compliance of orders passed by the Court. It was also indicated that the application filed for setting aside the order so far as these defendants are concerned having been rejected by Court, the suit was bound to fail and this was not a case of formal defect. The Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to grant requisite permission in terms of Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). Learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was bound to fail unless defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »