Orissa Court July 1992 Judgments
Mahanti Matyalu Vs. Oluru Appanama and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori36; 74(1992)CLT433
P. C. Misra, J. 1. This appeal has been referred to be heard by a Full Bench on the following question:--'Whether a female heir can claim partition of a dwelling house, if only one male heir is there, in view of the restriction imposed under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?' The learned Judge having found a cleavageof judicial opinion so far as interpretation of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is concerned, was of the view that a re-thinking in the matter is necessary in spite of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hemalata v. Uma Sankari reported in AIR 1975 Orissa 208.1.2. Since the reference is on the question of law only, the facts involved in this case are not necessary to be stated.2. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was enacted to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession. The Act has brought about some fundamental and radical changes in the law of succession previously applied to Hindus. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Khetramohan Rout and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Nageswar Mahadev and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR330
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The point for determination in these references is is whether the Assistant Commissioner can appoint non- hereditary trustee in respect of a religious institution other than math in exercise of his power Under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindhu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'), without prior determination of the fact if there is a hereditary trustee or not in a dispute case visua- lised by Section 41 of the Act, after the Act had been amended by inserting Section 8-B by Orissa Act 29 of 1.978. 2. We may note the relevant portions of the aforesaid sections at the very outset,'8-B. Power of authorities to act without .initiating proceedings Under Section 41.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioners shall have power to take action under any of the provisions of this Act in respect of any institution, if on information received or otherwise, they...
Tag this Judgment!Amruta Gadtia Vs. Trilochan Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1022
L. Rath, J. 1. The appellant assails the acquittal of the two respondents who are respectively son and father. While respondent No. 1 had been charged under Section 493, IPC, respondent No. 2 had been charged under Section 354, IPC. The allegations against the respondents were that respondent No. 1 had been proposing marriage to the appellant and was asking her for having sexual intercourse. On the Dola Purnima day of 1983 the appellant was called to the house of respondent No. 1 by his sister Ila Pradhan. There one Indu Pradhan gave two garlands and the appellant and respondent No. 1 exchanged the garlands. They closed the door and had sexual intercourse. Thereafter on several occasions they had sexual intercourse for which the appellant became pregnant. Respondent No. 1 promised the appellant to marry her properly and proposed to take her to Titilagarh to keep her there. He gave her some medicines and suggested her to take some injections which she refused. She informed the matter to...
Tag this Judgment!Jalada Dalang Uchha Bidyapith Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori257; 1993(I)OLR77
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core question that arises for determination in thiscase is whether a private educational institution on satisfying the prescribed eligibility criteria for receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government becomes entitled to receive such aid with effect from that date.2. Jalada Dalang Uchha Bidyapiths represented by the Secretary filed this writ application against the State Government in the Education and Youth Services Department; Director of Secondary Education, Orissa and Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle, seeking direction to the opposite parties to declare the petitioner's school to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from the year 1987-88 and to further direct the opposite parties to pay the salary component of the employees of the school with effect from that year,3. The undisputed factual backdrop of the case is that the petitioner's school was established in the year 1979; it was accorded recognition from the academic session 1980; the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Banarasi Devi Saha Vs. Basudev Lal Dhanuka
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT677; 1992(II)OLR359
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. This reference has been made by a learned Single Judge to decide whether a revision Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie against a revisional order passed by the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under the same section as amended. Cause for the reference arose because a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 892 of 1991 Kelu Sahoo v. Kalandi Sahoo disposed of on 15-1-1992 made an observation in para-5 that 'this Court can revise the revisional order of District Judge since under the amended provision restriction as imposed in respect of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not there'. The learned Single Judge in this present matter, however, could not persuade himself to agree with the aforesaid view. Hence, this reference.2. It is known that revisional power was conferred on the District Judges of this State following amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Orissa Act 26 of 1991. We may read amended Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Dulana Dei Alias Dolena Dei Vs. Balaram Sahu and Two ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori59
B.N. Dash, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against a reversing judgment.2. Admittedly, Narayan Prasad Patnaik and Umasankar Patnaik (respondents 4 and 5 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit) were the owners of the suit land measuring 68 decimals in plot No. 1653 under Khata No. 101 of village Iswarpal, Samil Kadelipal and they executed a registered sale deed dated 6-5-1971 (Ext. 1) for a consideration of Rupees 3,000/- in favour of Bela Bewa, the mother of the plaintiff-appellant Dulan Dal. Thereafter, they cancelled the said sale deed on 30-4-1973 by Ext. 1 on the ground of nonpayment of consideration and re-sold the suit land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 (Defendants 3 to 5) by a registered sale deed dated 4-2-1977 (Ext. 8). There is also no controversy that Bela Bewa died in 1976.3. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that before execution of the registered sale deed in favour of her mother, there was a written contract for sale of the suit land on 12-3-1971 between the...
Tag this Judgment!Wilamani Sahu Vs. Kanchan Behera Alias Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-28-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ742
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. When this appeal by defendant came up for orders relating to preparation of paper book I found that it is to be heard by a single Judge. Being satisfied that the suit is for maintenance of the plaintiff who claims to be wife of defendant, I dispensed with preparation of the paper book and heard the appeal on merits. 2. Respondent filed the suit for maintenance claiming to be married to appellant in 1985 alleging desertion and cruelty. Appellant in his written statement has denied the relationship as well as other assertions. His case is that he is married since 1982 with a child and claim of plaintiff is not correct. 3. Plaintiff examined four witnesses to prove her case. Defendant has examined three witnesses and proved the voter's list in support of his case. 4. Referring to assertion in the written statement that he fell in love with plaintiff during his stay in house of father of plaintiff and they stealthly came away to house of defendant in village Khamana w...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Souri Prasad Malla and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT113; 1993(II)OLR102
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Petitioners applied to be impleaded as parties in the suit. The same having been refused, this Civil Revision has been filed assailing the order of the trial Court.2. Suit is in respect of 19 decimals out of 57 decimals of land in plot No. 555, Disputed land is claimed to be the middle portion of the entire area. It is claimed by plaintiff that the entire area was recorded as 'Puratana Patita' belonging to Raja of Burdhwan in Kujang Estate. In the year 1939, the same was settled with one Binakar Behera on occupancy basis. Binakar Behera being ettled raiyat of the village, he acquired occupancy right over the land and continued to pay rent in respect of the same being in cultivating possession. By the time Binakar died in the year 1970,his right as occupancy raiyat was protected Under Section 8 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Jamabandi was also filed in favour of Binakar. On death of Binakar, plaintiff purchased the land measuring 57 decimals from Simananda and...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakant Rout Alias Routray Vs. Prafulla Kumar Das and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC551; 1993ACJ496; 74(1992)CLT868; (1993)ILLJ609Ori; 1992(II)OLR536
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Stamp Reporter has pointed out that absence of certificate required under Section 30(1) third proviso, of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act') is a defect to be removed by the appellant.2. Impugned order is a composite order determining the compensation as well as the penalty under Section 4-A of the Act and direction to pay the same. Mr. L. Dash, learned counsel for appellant, submitted that imposition of the penalty is being assailed in this case on various grounds, one of which is that no opportunity was given to the owner to have his say in the matter of penalty since the rate of penalty is not fixed and a discretion is left with the Commissioner to either absolve the owner from paying any penalty or direct to pay such amount lesser than the maximum rate fixed in Section 4-A of the Act. Accordingly, Mr. Dash submitted that prima facie there is a strong ground in the appeal which in the minimum is to be remitted back for re-consideration to give...
Tag this Judgment!Dukha Dev Sarkar Vs. Government of India, Labour and Welfare Departmen ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: II(1993)ACC4; 1994ACJ131; 1993(I)OLR30
A. Pasayat, J.1. The judgment of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M. D.), Sambalpur (hereinafter described as the 'Tribunal' ) refusing to grant any compensation to the appellant, also described as the claimant, is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal.2. Claimant lodged a claim Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000/- from the respondent, on the ground that on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 4459, belonging to the respondent, he sustained injuries and was therefore, entitled to be compensated. According to the claimant, he was driving his motor cycle bearing registration No ORP 3394 very slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. Suddenly the offending vehicle which was being driven at a very high speed in the most rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant's vehicle as a result of which he was thrown out of his vehicle and sust...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »