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.
Benupani Behera Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT400; 1992(I)OLR571
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner faced trial being charged under Section 419/420/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') on the accusation that he was a party to impersonation and cheating, resulting in improper payment of land acquisition compensation.2. The synoptical presumption of the case of the prosecution is as follows :On 5-9-1979, one Madhab Majhi impersonated as Sanu Golari, and received Rs. 7,718.80 from the Zone Officer, Land Acquisition Upper Kolab at Lamtaput, towards land acquisition compensation payable to the said Sanu Golari. Accused Madhab Majhi was identified by the Petitioner, and other accused persons namely, Adu Majhi and Dhanurjaya Guntha. When actual claimant Ronila Golari, widow of sanu Golari complained regarding non- payment of compensation, indiscretion of Madhab Majhi was found out. First Information Report was lodged by the Zone Officer, and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other three named accused persons...
Satrughana Rout Vs. Managing Director, Tribal Development Co-operative ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: 73(1992)CLT588; 1992(I)OLR474
B.L. Hansaria, C.J. 1. Is Tribunal Development Co-operative Corporation of Orissa Limited (TDCC) a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is the question which is required to be determined by us in this reference. Though a Bench of this Court in Baikuntha Swaini v. Tribal. Development Co-operative Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (OJC No. 521 of 1983, disposed of on 13-4-1990) had answered the question in negative, when this question came up before another Bench, in this case necessity of 'another look' on the matter was thought merited for the reasons incorporated in the referring order dated 12-10-1990, it is because of this that we have heard the matter at length after providing, full opportunities to all concerned to place before us all necessary materials and to assist us otherwise in answering this important question. It is a matter of great satisfaction to us that we received valuable assistance from learned counsel of all the parties and we put on record our app...
Narendra Ray Vs. Kunjabehari Ray and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ori217
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this revision petition assailing the order dated 13-11-90 of the trial Court dismissing the suit as barred by principle of res judicata.2. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 9 of 1989 in the Court of the Second Munsif, Cuttack against the opposite parties seeking the reliefs, inter alia, to declare his exclusive right, title and interest to the suit property as occupancy tenant, to confirm his possession over the same, to permanently restrain the defendants not to interfere with his possession over the suit property except exercising their right of way over the eastern portion of the suit plot and to declare that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 83 of 1972 by the Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack and confirmed in Title Appeal No. 27 of 1975 and Second Appeal No. 68 of 1979 is nullity and non est. The suit property as described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint is A.O.01 decimal of land under Sabik Malik Khata No. 47, Sikim Khata No. 10, Sik...
Tilotama Kar and ors. Vs. Ranjitarani Satpathy and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT124; 1992(I)OLR437
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The petitioners together with opp. parties 2 and 3 are arrayed as the accused persons in the criminal case I. C. C. No. 277 of 1991/1222 T of 1991 under Sections 498-A and 40 IPC which is pending in the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara. The case was initiated on the complaint filed by the opp. party No. 1. In the said case the petitioners filed an application under Section 205, Criminal Procedure Code praying to the learned Magistrate to dispense with their personal attendance and to permit them to be represented by their Advocate on the grounds that all of them are ladies, petitioner No. 1 Tilotama Kar is an old lady, suffering from hypertension and will not be able to come to Court very often 'due to her ailment and petitioners 2 and 3 who are daughters of petitioner No. 1 are young girls of marriageable age, negotiation for their marriage is in progress and it will not be convenient and proper for them to appear before the Court often. ...
Sraban Kumar Pradhan Vs. Smt. Menaka Kumari Rout Alias Pradhan and anr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT221; 1993CriLJ2428
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code').2. The background facts are to the following effect.Opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner were married on 5-6-1979. Out of their wedlock a daughter (opp. party No. 2) was born on 6-4-1980. An application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code was filed by opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner having sufficient means neglected and refused to maintain her and her daughter. Both she and her daughter were unable to maintain themselves. A claim of Rs. 1200/- was made on the ground that the petitioner was drawing salary of more than Rs. 3,000/- per month. The background for such neglect and refusal was stated to be inability of opp. party No. 1's father to give money to the petitioner for purchase of land. Allegati...
State Bank of India, Balangir Branch Vs. Satyanarayan Sarangi and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2635
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir discharging opposite party No. 1 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') by setting aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balangir (in short 'the SDJM') is assailed in this revision application by the informant.2. The accusations which set the law into motion are as follows :Opposite Party No. 1 Satyanarayan Sarangi (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was working as a clerk of the State Bank of India, Balangir Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant'). The Branch Manager of the informant-bank lodged a report in the Balangir town Police Station to the effect that on Lokanath Nepak had opened a savings bank account in the bank, and he complained about irregularities in his account. The account holder had not withdrawn Rs. 7,500/- from his account, but it was so reflected in the pass book, on receipt of information, a case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›