Orissa Court March 1992 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.
Santosh Kumar Dash Vs. the State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR498
B.L. Hansaria, C.J. 1. These cases have been referred to a Division Bench to decide whether while exercising power under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to delivery of property following seizure by any police officer, and white deciding the question as to who is 'the person entitled to the possession thereof', the Magistrate can consider the accused, from whose custody the property was seized as one of such person.2. The reference owes its origin to the fact that a view was taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in M.S. Jaggi v. Subash Chandra, ILR (1977) 2 Cut. 188 : 44 (1977) CLT 139 that while exercising the power under Section 457, if' a person from whom the property was seized is charged with an offence or is suspected of having committed an offence and the police launches an investigation, he cannot be a person entitled to possession until after the final report is submitted.........To treat such a person who is suspected of having committed a crime ...
Settlement Class-iv Job Contract Employees Union Vs. State of Orissa a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-24-1992
Reported in: 95(2003)CLT173
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.The petitioner is a Union of class IV job contract employees belonging to Balasore and Mayurbhanj districts. It has taken up the cause of the job contract workers employed as Chainmen and Process Servers in connection with Survey and Settlement operation. Though some of the members of the petitioner's Union have served for about two decades by now they have not been regularised; and so, the main prayer in this petition is to seek a direction on the opposite parties to regularise the workers so that after retirement they become entitled to terminal benefits like pension and gratuity. This apart, though the employees are being paid the basic salary along with D.A. and A.D.A., they are denied increments, General Provident Fund, house rent, surrender leave, earned leave, medical leave, leave travel concession etc, enjoyed by the regular employees, and so, if the Chainmen and the Process Servers would be regularised, they could avail these benefits also.2. The system of j...
Executive Engineer, National High Way Vs. Sri Tirana Bhutia and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC737
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by the principal employer.2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner under the Act alleging that he was in an employment under the respondent No. 2, the contractor. In course of and arising out of his employment, he sustained injuries on 3.5.1988.3. Commissioner has found that notices on respondent No. 2 was sent by registered post but returned unserved with the postal remark 'left1. Respondent No. 2 would be the best person to prove whether respondent No. 1 is its employee, his age and salary as well as the nature of the injuries. Since notice on respondent No. 2 is not sufficient, entire enquiry is vitiated being in violation of the principle of natural justice.4. Workman is to face prolonged litigation. To mitigate this grievance, from out of the amount in deposit, Commissioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the workman for taking part is the enquiry wh...
Kamala Panda @ Pandiani Vs. Mst. Junha Patel
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT544; II(1992)DMC10
P.C. Misra, J.1. Defendant in Title Suit No. 17 of 1987 of the Courtof Munsif, Sambalpur is the appellant in this appeal challenging the reversingjudgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in Title AppealNo. 36/11 of 1987/88. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a declarationthat she .is the wife of Bharat Patel (since dead) and she is entitled to get thefamily pension on account of the death of her husband.Bharat Patel was working as a Daftari in the Collectorate ofSambalpur. He died on 4.10.1975. After his death the plaintiff as the secondwife of late Bharat was Paid family pension, gratuity etc. for the period from 5.10.1975 to 28.2.1982. By order dated 12.3.1982 the Collector, Sambalpurwithheld the family pension sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the groundthat the plaintiff is not legally married wife of late Bharat Patel. The plaintiffmade a representation to the Collector as well as to the Accountant GeneralOrissa alleging that she is the legally ma...
Kamal Krushna Murty Patra (Dead) After Him, His L. Rs. Kamala Mohalaxm ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR598
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Petitioner applied for a succession certificate. As required under Section 379 of the Indian Succession Act, he deposited the amount for expending the same for collection of court-fee. His application was allowed. Opp. party No. 2 challenged the order in High Court in appeal. This Court has set aside the order and directed the trial Court to reconsider the question of grant of succession certificate afresh. It is stated that after remand, there was a compromise.2. After compromise, petitioner prayed for refund of the money deposited. Trial Court held that the same cannot be refunded which is grievance of petitioner.3. Refund of the money deposited depends upon whether the money deposited is required to be expended. Hence, the stage of the application for succession certificate would be the governing factor for refund. Merely because, the money had been expended would not be a ground to refuse refund, where order of the Court became invalid. No one should be permit...
Bidulata Das Vs. Braja Bihari Palit and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori78; 75(1993)CLT74
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is petitioner in this civil revision.2. In the suit for title, possession and permanent injunction with other consequential reliefs in respect of a house in Cuttack town, plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction against defendant No. 1 along with the application for temporary injunction, plaintiff filed an application invoking power of the trial court to record reasons as required under Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C., for passing an order of ex parte ad interim injunction. Trial court having refused to exercise such power, plaintiff filed an appeal against the order treating it to be refusal to pass an order of injunction. Appellate court dismissed the appeal on the finding that the appeal is not maintainable. This is grievance of the plaintiff in the revision.3. Short question for consideration is whether an appeal lies against an order of the court declining to pass an ex parte ad interim order of injunction.4. It is now settled by this Co...
Sudarsan Balabantrai and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR61
A. Pasayat, J.1. The petitioners call in question the legality of the order dated 3-1-7-1991 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri (in short, the 'SOM') taking cognizance under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, I860 (in short, IPC) and Under Section 9(b)of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 (in short the Explosives Act) According to the petitioner, the teamed SDJM was not justified in taking cognizance, much less on the basis of a motion mad by the Investigating Officer, to take cognizance Under Section 307, IPC, This submission is made in Khe background that charge-sheet was submitted Under Sections 336/337/326/34, IPC, and Section 9 (b) of the Explosives Act. It appears that pursuant to the order taking-cognisance, nonbailable warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioners. By order dated 2-12-199'l in Misc. Case No. 463 of 1991, this Court had directed that if the petitioners moved for bail the same was to be considered without taking into cons...
Siba Prasad Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori206
Hansaria, C.J.1. This petition was once heard and was allowed on 18-5-1990 by quashing Annexures 3 and 4, by which the lease of the weekly market at Hadabadada granted in favour of the petitioner by Gram Panchayat for a period of five years (1-4-1989 to 31-3-1994) was cancelled pursuant to the order of the Government passed in exercise of the power under Section 152 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). This was so done, because the Court took the view that the Government had no authority to do so in exercise of its power under Section 152 of the Act. But then, an observation was made in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the 'grant of lease in favour of the petitioner by private negotiation was no doubt contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Rules (meaning Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1 (sic))'. It was, therefore, felt by one of the Judges deciding that case as to whether 'illegal obtaining of the lease..... should be allowed to stand' as stated in paragraph...
Balaram Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT368; (1993)ILLJ864Ori
Hansaria, C.J.1. This court has been called upon again to decide as to at what rate wages are to be paid to the N.M.R. workers. Precisely put, the question is whether they should get wages equal to those being made available to the regularly employed persons discharging the same duties and functions.2. This is not the first occasion that this question has come up before this Court. We would have indeed thought that in view of the long line of decisions of this court based on the judgments of the Supreme Court on 'equal pay for equal work', there would be no occasion to re-examine this question. But that is not so. The State has opposed in the present case to the grant of pay to the petitioners who are working either as Males or Discharge Observers. They are, however, being paid at daily rate varying from Rs. 12.75 to Rs. 16/- whereas the basic salary of the persons doing the same type of work on regular basis is Rs. 150/- per month. They are, therefore, claiming wages paid to the regul...
Banka Das, Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT225; 1992(I)OLR421
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The two Criminal Revisions and the two Criminal Misc. Cases had been placed before our learned brother Pasayat, J. Because of the importance of the questions involved and the impact of certain decisions of this Court with which brother Pasayat, J. did not prima facie agree, he has referred these cases to a Division Bench. The learned Single Judge has formulated four questions:(1) Whether an excise official investigating into an offence under the Act is a Police Officer empowered to file a charge sheet or he is required to file a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code')? (2) In a case where the prosecution report is not submitted within fifteen days, which Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, in the absence of establishment of a Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the Act. (3) Whether a remind beyond the aforesaid period is permissible by the Magistrate? In case such a remand is not permissible do...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »