Orissa Court April 1992 Judgments
Udayanath Pani Vs. State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori14; 78(1994)CLT696
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The appellate order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No. 4 of 1992, annexed as Annexure 3, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.2. The petitioner is a stage-carriage operator and applied for the inter-State route Paradeep to Jamshedpur via Jamsola for grant of a stage-carriage permit. The State Transport Authority in its meeting dated 10-12/1991 considering the merits and demerits of the different applicants granted two permits in favour of the petitioner for the route in question. While granting the aforesaid permits, the State Transport Authority took into consideration the fact that the petitioner is operating on the route on the basis of temporary permits and there has been no complaint against him and his operation has been considered as smooth and not detrimental to the interest of the travelling public and there is no tax arrear against him. Opposite party No. 2 being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Biranchi Sahu Vs. Jujesthi Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(I)OLR68
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The decree-holder in Title Suit No. 18 of 1967 is the petitioner. The suit was one for partition and preliminary decree was passed on 27-3-1970. Final decree proceeding was initiated and it was sealed and signed on 15-4-1986. The petitioner filed Execution Case No. 9 of 1986 for taking delivery of possession of the property allotted to his share under the decree in question. Opp. party No. 2 filed an objection challenging the maintainability of the execution case on the ground that subsequent to the decree, consolidation operation having commenced in the area, rights and interests of the parlies have been worked out in the said consolidation proceedings ; the consolidation authorities have allotted different chakas to different shareholders and parties have executed sale deeds pursuant to the allotment and, therefore, that right cannot be now interfered with in the execution proceeding. The learned Munsif having allowed the objection fifed by opp. party No. 2 and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Jena Vs. Ramesh Chandra Jena and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT214; 1992(II)OLR58
A. Pasayat, J.1. Three inter-related questions arise for determination in this revision application, i. e. (a) whether a suit for partition of homestead land abates in terms of Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act. 1972 (in short, the 'Consolidation Act') (b) if the suit abates, have the consolidation authorities jurisdiction to grant relief Under Section 4 of the Partition Act while effecting partition Under Section 7 of the Consolidation Act, and (c) whether relief of permanent injunction, if sought for in a suit for partition, can be granted by the consolidation authorities.2. The matter was placed before us on being referred by a learned Single Judge considering importance of questions involved. Delineation of factual position is unnecessary, because resolution of the controversy revolves round adjudication of various provisions of the Consolidation Act and the Partition Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to re...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Pallai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ori261; 74(1992)CLT90; 1992(II)OLR102
Hansaria, C.J.1. :- The following question of law has been referred for our decision :---'Whether it is open to a High Court in a writ proceeding to set aside an order of punishment if the same be, according to it, arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed; and if so, can it substitute any other punishment in its place which, in its opinion, be just and proper in the circumstances of the case?'2. The aforesaid reference has come to be made in these circumstances : A view was taken by a Bench of two Judges in two unreported decisions of this Court, namely, Gopinath Das v. State of Orissa (O. J. C. No. 146 of 1985 disposed of on 12-10-1990) and Ramachandra Routray v. Anil Kumar Mukherjee (O. J. C. No. 1679 of 1989 disposed of on 23-10-1990), that it is open to the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority following a departmental enquiry where the High Court be of the view that the punishment is shock...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Madhab Chandra Podh Vs. State of Orissa and 4 ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1998(II)OLR334
ORDER1. The petitioner has come with the grievance that though he was continuing against a Trained Graduate Post in the Sachidananda High School in the district of Bolangir and acquired the trained qualification in December, 1983, yet he has been refused to be granted the trained graduate scale of pay since the date of his acquiring such qualification. It is the case that he had been appointed against an I.A.C.T. Post on 22.2.1973 in the school and the post he was holding was upgraded with effect from 28.1.1975 to a Trained Graduate Post. He continued in that post in the scale of pay of I.A.C.T. Teacher as he was having the qualification of being only a graduate. In December 1983 he became a Trained Graduate and hence in accordance with the decision of the Government in its letter No. XIV EDET 5/83, 568o EYS dated 7.2.1983 addressed to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Orissa, was entitled to the Trained Graduate Scale of pay. On notice being issued, counter affidavit has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Kumar Rath and ors. Vs. Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori143; 74(1992)CLT734
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. This writ application presents the woeful story of some candidates who had appeared in Certificate Course in Physical Education Examination, 1990 as private candidates, and who having been declared to have passed the examination on 12-11-90 were again declared to have failed by notification dated 14-12-1990. The petitioners, in number of Jagannath College of Physical Education, Mundal have prayed for commanding the apposite parties to restore their results declaring them to have passed and to quash Annexure-2 dated 14-12-90 communicating the revised results declaring them to have failed.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus:-- The petitioners had all appeared as private candidates in the P.E.T. Examination, 1990 at the Government College of P.E.T. held in Secondary Board High School, Cuttack and their results were communicated by opposite party No. 2, the Principal, Government College of Physical Education, Orissa to the Principal, Jagannath College o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Ori)111; [1993]199ITR800(Orissa)
J.M. Mahapatra, J. 1. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our decision is : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the relationship between the assessees and the company in which he/she acted as a director can be said to be that of an employee and employer so that the assessees would be entitled to deduction under Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. The assessees in the different cases are all directors of Messrs, Kapoor Motor Engineering Private Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The different cases involve a common question of law, though they pertain to different assessment years and to different assessees. These references have, therefore, been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the relevant years, the assessees were all assessed as individuals and they claimed their remuneration as 'salaries' and claimed standard dedu...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Barik Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT663; (1993)ILLJ534Ori
J.M. Mahapatra, J.1. In this batch of writ applications, challenge has been made by the petitioners to the orders of the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, passed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, allowing the claim of bonus and differential house rent allowances of the employees of the Board, and in one case (O.J.C. No. 2879/90) refusing such claim to the employee. As common questions of fact and law are involved in all these applications, the petitions were heard analogously with the consent of the counsel for both the parties, and these are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus: The petitioners in all the cases except one, are employees of the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board which is a statutory board constituted under the Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1955 (Orissa Act 3/1956); for the purpose of organising, developing and regulating the Khadi and Village Industries in the State of Orissa....
Tag this Judgment!Kapila Pradhan and ors. Vs. Parcha Pradhan and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-22-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC393
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the petitioners in this civil revision against an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month.2. Plaintiff filed the suit that her husband, father of defendant No. 1 had given her about seven acres of land for maintenance in lieu of being maintained by her son (petitioner No. 1). However, the step son remaining in forcible possession of those lands, is not maintaining her. Accordingly, suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the land given by her husband or in the alternative for maintenance by defendant No. 1 and others.In this suit an application for interim maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month has been filed.3. Trial Court has directed interim maintenance @ Rs. 150/- per month. This is grievance of the petitioners.4. Mr. Mahakud, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that step son is not liable to maintain step-mother in view of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 since the widow has...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Barik Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-21-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT280; (1993)ILLJ465Ori; 1992(II)OLR257
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. This appeal purporting to be one under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 by the insured person, is directed against the order of the District Judge, Cuttack exercising powers of an Employees' Insurance Court under the Act.2. The appellant served as Office Peon in the Office of Kalinga Tubes, Choudwar. On December 23, 1982 while he was standing near the Inspector's table inside the department, some foreign substance fell into his eyes. He was treated in the E.S.I. Hospital, Choudwar and thereafter in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. Ultimately he was advised to use glasses. The case of the appellant for permanent disablement benefit was referred by the E.S.I. Corporation to a Medical Board for determination of the disablement in question. The Medical Board opined that he had not suffered from any defective vision due to fall of foreign body into his eyes and the refractive error which has developed in his eyes is not related to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »