Orissa Court September 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.
K. Ramakrishna Rao and ors. Vs. the State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR126
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 7 are the petitioners in this Civil Revision.2. Gase of plaintiff is that defendants executed a demand promissory note and on depositing title deeds took loan from the plaintiff. In 1982, they acknowledged and extended the period of payment. When no payment was made, suit was filed for recovery of loan amount as per demand promissory note and to recover the same by sale of the mortgaged property in case for recovery is not possible. In their written statement defendants raised the question of territorial jurisdiction of Bhawanipatna Court Under Section 16, CPC since the properties mortgaged by deposit of title deeds were in Andhra Pradesh. On this objection, plaintiff made a prayer for amendment of the plaint by incorporating the relief that in case it is found that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to pass a simple decree for money on basis of demand promissory note. Defendants prayed to hear the Issue of territorial jurisdiction as...
Minati Kar and ors. Vs. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR342
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The petitioner are students of Sadashiva Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha, Puri. They are pursuing their education for Shiksha Shastri course during the academic session 1991-92. The course is conducted by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi. They completed their course and appeared in all practical examinations conducted by the opposite parties. But as they were not permitted to appear at the written test scheduled to be conducted 1rom 6-5-1992, they moved this Court on 4-5-1992, and obtained an interim order from the Court that they would be permitted to appear at the examination scheduled to be held from 6-5-1992 but their results would not be published without leave of the Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order they had appeared at the Examination which was conducted with effect from 6-5- 1992. The petitioners allege that Shiksha Shastri course in Sanskrit is conducted by opp. party No. 1 through seven Sanskrit Vidyapithas one of which is at Puri. Adm...
Gopal Barik Vs. Bhima Barik and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR139
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Judgment-debtor is petitioner in this Civil Revision.2. Plaintiff filed a suit for title, confirmation of possession and in case it is found that plaintiff has been dispossessed during pendency of the suit for recovery of possession. Plaintiff also prayed for permanently restraining defendant from interfering with his possession. Suit was decreed by finding that plaintiff has title and possession over the property and consequently defendant was permanently restrained. There after, plaintiff as decree-holder filed execution for recovery of possession from defendant judgment-debtor. Objection was filed by judgmentdebtor that in view of the nature of the decree, there is no scope for recovery of possession. Executing Court having rejected the objection by the impugned order the same is assailed in the present Civil Revision.3. Applying the principle that executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Mr. S.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ...
Subrat Ghosh Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori139; 76(1993)CLT90
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner who was a student of the Ravenshaw College, Cuttack in Science faculty in +2 course in 1989 has come before this Court with the grievance of his answer papers in the Final Examination of +2 Science having not been correctly valued for which the percentage of marks secured by him has become less than what he would have ordinarily secured and that by such incorrect valuation of his answer papers, he has been grossly prejudiced. It is his case that he has a bright career as a student having secured 90 per cent. marks in all the subjects taken together in the I.C.S.E. Examination and 92 per cent. marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and was placed in 'A' grade. So far as the +2 result is concerned, he makes the specific grievance regarding incorrect valuation of his answers in Physics Papers I and II and Chemistry Papers I and II. Refuting the charges it was canvassed before us by the opposite parties 1 and 2, the Council of Higher Education and the Controll...
Arnab Kumar Mitra and anr. Vs. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: 1992(II)OLR484
R.K. Patra, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as' the Code') challenging the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Opposite party as the proprietor of M/s. Jagannath Distributors, Cuttack has filed the complaint bearing number I. C. C. 8 of 1938 in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack Tgainst the petitioners and the Manager of Platinum Road Link alleging that they have committed offences Under Sections 420/418 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been stated in the complaint that petitioner No. 1, the local representative of petitioner No. 2, went to the shop of opposite party on 26-9-1987 and induced him to be the distributor on behalf of National Organic and Chemical Industries Limited (NOCIL) for Cuttack and Ganjam and on being so induced, opposite party placed order for sup...
Jadumani Khanda Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT652; 1993CriLJ2701
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. In this appeal from the jail, the convict assails his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case is, on 15-3-87 at about noon time the deceased, a lady (locally called as Bayani for her erratic behaviour and movement) entered the house of the appellant and broke his earthen articles after eating away his food. At this it is stated, that the appellant chased the said Bayani holding an axe and killed her inside Atei reserve forest close to village Bailjodi, the village of the appellant.The prosecution case further proceeds that after killing Bayani, the appellant came to the village and gave out that he had killed 'Bayani'. This was heard by P.W. 2, daughter of P.W. 1 who informed the latter and P.W. 1 reported the matter at the police station. A Panch was also held in the village on the following day where it was stated that the appellant confessed his guilt before the Panch. A case havi...
Rangadhar Nayak Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 74(1992)CLT856; (1993)ILLJ738Ori
A. Pasayat, J.1.This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. In the earlier writ application i.e. OJ.C. No. 3512 of 1987 disposed of on January 11, 1990, the petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Talcher Unit of Fertiliser Corporation of India (for short 'the F.C.I.'), had assailed the order directing his removal by way of dismissal in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under Rule 23 of the Fertiliser Corporation of India Limited Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules'). After delineating the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of disciplinary action, it was observed that departmental authorities are the sole Judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their conclusion is based, adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter that can be permitted to be canvassed before High Court in a proceeding under Article 226. The scope for interference wa...
Smt. Susama Debi Vs. Smt. Matangini Debi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori44; 75(1993)CLT100; 1993(I)OLR12
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Plaintiff is petitioner in this civil revision against an order refusing the prayer to substitute the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 11.2. When the suit for partition was dismissed, plaintiff filed First Appeal No. 39 of 1975 in this Court making defendant No. 11 a respondent therein. When notice of the appeal was sent, process server reported that defendant No. 11 had died. Accordingly, plaintiff filed an application for substitution of the legal representatives of defendant No, 11 with a petition for setting aside abatement asserting that although defendant No. 11 died on 8-12-1974, she came to know about the same on 30th October, 1975 after making inquiry on getting information from her Advocate at Cuttack that the process-server had reported about the death of defendant No. 11. Since the death was in the trial court, this Court observed that the petition for substitution did not He in appeal. It was directed that the effect of non-substitu...
Padartha Amat and anr. Vs. Siba Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ori92
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. This Civil Revision arises out of a judgment under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.2. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming that 'A'Schedule property was under ownership and possession of one Purna Chandra Bhukta of village Maheswarpinda who had sold sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 200/ and delivered possession thereof. While he was possessing the same after purchase by raising crops, defendants forcibly dispossessed him on 11-6-1983 and sowed paddy on it. Plaintiffs protest remained unheaded and defendants threatened to assault him. Plaintiff applied for mutation on 23-4-1988 but the same has been refused. Accordingly, being dispossessed within six months, the suit isfiled for recovery of possession. 3. Defendants in their joint written statement stated that suit land was in possession of Purna Chandra Bhukta. However, the same was not sold to the plaintiff by Purna. They denied assertion of possession by plaintiff since 1969. They claimed to be in possessio...
Rukmini Nayak Vs. Naresh Bastaray and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR44
L. Rath, J.1. This is a revision at the instance of the informant in a G. R. Case seeking reversal of the order of acquittal of opp. party No. 1 from a charge Under Section 498-A, IPC. On the information lodged by the petitioner G. R. Case No. 211 of 1987 was registered against opp. party No. 1 Under Sections 498-A and Section 506, IPC. During the trial of the case both the petitioner and opp. party No. 1 filed a petition for compounding the offence Under Section 506, IPC which was allowed and the opp. party No. 1 was acquitted of the charge Under Section 320;8) Cr. P. C. The trial thereafter proceeded only in respect of the offence Under Section 498-A, IPC but on 9-1-1989 both parties filed a deed of agreement made between them on a stamp paper in presence of the members of the Reconciliation Cell and Legal Aid Committee of Baliiguda Sub-division and in consonance with it the APP filed a Memo in Court declining to adduce further evidence and the evidence for the prosecution was closed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »