Orissa Court August 1992 Judgments
Aruna Kar Vs. Dr. Sarat Dash @ Nachhi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT24; 1993CriLJ1507; I(1993)DMC153
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short the 'Act'), order of learned Judge, Family Court. Cuttack rejecting an application for restoration of petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') is assailed.A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary for disposal of the appeal which involves a ticklish question of law, fact situation as described by the appellant runs as follows :The appellant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance on the ground that she is the legally married wife of respondent who has sufficient means to maintain her, she is unable to maintain her, the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain her and she is not disqualified under any of the provisions enumerated in Section 125 of the Code. There appears to be long drawn series of litigations between parties, with which we are not presently concerned. On 26-11-1990 appellant filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Sushanta Behera and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT875; 1993(I)OLR443
A. Pasayat, J.1. Conviction made Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur are asssiled by Sushania Behera and Dharmu Behera (hereinafter described as the 'accused'). They were charged with the offence of commission of murder in furtherance of common intention of one Tirthabasi Harijan (hereinafter described as the 'deceased').2. Background facts shorn of unnecessary details are as follows :Khira Dei, the sister of the informant Golbadan Harijan (PW 1) was given in marriage to the accused Sushanta Behera, who is the son of other accused Dharmu Behera. Due to frequent quarrel between the husband and wife, Khira came to her father's house. Accused Dharmu convened a meeting where it was decided by the Panchayat that the fault did not lie with the husband and the wife, but with their respective fathers. The deceased did not agree to allow his daughter to join her husb...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Aruna Kar Vs. Dr. Sarat Dash @ Nachhi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR549
A. Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal Under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, (in short, the 'Act'), order of learned Judge, Family Courts, Cuttack rejecting an application for restoration of petition Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') is assailed.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary for disposal of the appeal which involves a ticklish question of law. Fact situation as described by the appellant runs as follows :The appellant filed an application Under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance on the ground that she is the legally married wife of respondent who has sufficient means to maintain her, she is unable to maintain her, the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain her and she is not disqualified under any of the provisions enumerated in Section 125 of the Code. There appears to be long drawn series of litigations between parties, with which we are not presently concerned. On 26-11-1990 appellant fi...
Tag this Judgment!Kartik Sahu Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ102
Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal from the District Jail, Phulbani Kartik Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of conviction made under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and the sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Additionally the accused has been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. A brief resume of the facts situation would suffice. The accused, a resident of village Gopinathpur under Sarankul Police Station in the district of Puri came from his village with his wife Pendari alias Shantilata (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his minor daughter and reached at the shop of Kishore Chandra Sahu (P.W. 5) at about 4 p.m. on 27-10-1986. The accused enquired from P.W. 5 as to whether Sagar Babu, a teacher was available in the school at Kilakia. Although the witness repel...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamsundar Mantri Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Cuttack
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori70
P.C. Misra, J.1. In a reference under Sections 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 41 / 90 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur, the date of hearing was fixed to 10-2-1981. The petitioner in this case could not appear on the date of hearing and the case was dismissed for default. A petition was filed Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the land acquisition case on the ground that he was suffering from rheumatism on the relevant date and could not attend the court due to his illness. The learned trial court disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner held that there was no sufficient cause which prevented him from appearing in the case on the date of hearing. In the result, the application for restoration was dismissed. The aforesaid order of the learned Subordinate Judge has been challenged in this revision. The Hon'ble Single Judge before wh...
Tag this Judgment!Raghu Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT759; 1993CriLJ1159; 1992(II)OLR364
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Appellant faced his trial Under Sections 402, 323 and 332, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') for committing murder of his wife and two minor children, for assaulting the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police while on duty and one Rajhu Pradhan (PW 1). Additional Sessions Judge has convicted him Under Sections 302. 332 and 323 of the Code .and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life Under Section 302, of the Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for there months and one month Under Sections 332 and 323 of the Code, respectively, directing all the sentences to run concurrently. The present appeal has been filed challenging the same.2. Prosecution case in brief, is that the accused was working as a labourer and was residing with his wife Sambari (deceased), son Dambaru (deceased), daughter Mini (deceased) and another smart daughter at village Subalpur under Pipili Police Station in the district of Puri. PW 1 (Raghunath Pradhan) is a distant relation o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkishore SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR373
P.C. Misra, J.1. The petitioner claiming to be a Green Card holder has prayed for two advance increments with effect from the date he is entitled to such benefit.2. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is a teacher of Goutami High School, an aided educational institution within the definition of Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) 'Rules, 1974. It is however, alleged that on 17-10-1986 the wife of the petitioner adopted the terminal method of contraception (Tubectomy) by which time the petitioner had two sons only to avoid further conception. She was granted a Green-Card for the adoption. A copy of the Green Card has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure 1. By virtue of a resolution of the Government dated 12-10-1983, copy of which was forwarded to all Departments on 19-10-1983, the Government of Orissa assured certain advantages and incentives to the Green Card holders. In t...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Tripathy Vs. Ganesh Prasad Singh and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ204
K.G. Jagadeb Roy, J. 1. The petitioner who has been shown as one of the accused persons in a complaint petition filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack has preferred this Misc. Case challenging the order dated 16-1-1986 of the S.D.J.M. in I.C.C. case No. 12 of 1986 taking cognizance against him under Sections 420 and 406 of the I.P.C.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order on the ground that on a plain reading of the complaint petition and for the sake of argument accepting the entire allegation to be true, no prima facie case against him has been made out either under Section 420 or under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and the learned S.D.J.M. without proper application of mind and without following the test that is required of him while taking cognizance has taken such Cognizance contrary to law resulting unnecessary harassment to him and prays for quashing the order. In the complaint petition wh...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gouranga Adhok Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori52
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. Seizure of hotel 'Jhilmil' at Chandaneswar in the district of Balasore, handing over possession of the same in favour of and issue of sale letter to opposite party No. 4 by Orissa State Financial Corporation are under challenge in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A partnership firm styled as 'M/s. Hotel Jhilmil' with petitioner and, one Hemanta Kumar Dhar as partners applied for loan to the Corporation to establish a hotel at Chandaneswar. The Corporation sanctioned loan of Rs. 8,39,000/- in two phases on 22-7-1988 and 1-9-1988. The partnership however availed only Rs. 7,94,000/ - out of the sanctioned amount. Pending final sanction of subsidy amounting to Rs. 2,36,700/- by the Subsidy Committee, the Corporation also disbursed same amount to the partnership as loan. After completion, the hotel started functioning from November, 1989. As on 30-6-1991, the partnership had defaulted Rs. 3,26,435/- out of which principal was Rs. 9,720/- a...
Tag this Judgment!Adwait Charan Sahu Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Athmallik and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori123; 74(1992)CLT772; 1993(I)OLR273
Hansaria, C.J.1. A proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (hereinafter, 'the Act') was initiated against the petitioner for realising a sum of Rs. 8,000/- said to be due as per Rule 34 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, 'the Rules'). This sum was sought to be realised on these facts:--The petitioner, who is a forest contractor, took part in an auction which was held for selling West Baruni Coppice Coupe No. 5 of Divisional Lot No. 17, His bid was of Rs. 12,100/-. The sale was knocked down in his favour, and he was called upon to deposit the security money. But instead of depositing the amount, he fled away from the auction hall and thus made the sale ineffective. The Divisional Forest Officer, Athmallik, thereafter, in pursuance of paragraph 10(a) of General Conditions of Sale, quashed the auction sale and resold the coupe in a fresh auction which fetched Rs. 4,100/- only. The shortfall, therefore, came to Rs. 8,000/-, and it is this amount f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »