Orissa Court February 1993 Judgments
Chandramani Swain, S/O. Ganesh SwaIn Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT680; 1993(I)OLR298
ORDERG.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Though this application has been filed Under Section 439, CrPC for releasing the petitioner Chandramani Swain on bail, in course of hearing the application Mr. Mishra for ths petitioner challenges the legality of the older of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri dated 24-1-1993 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner having been released on bail by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in exercise of his power Under Section 439, CrPC by order dated 6-8-1992, it was not open for the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge to hold that the said order was not maintainable and to recall the same by the impugned order. The short facts necessary for deciding the legality of the aforesaid contention are that, the petitioner was arrested on the allegation of having committed an offence Under Section 302/149 1PC along with several other offences and in course of investigation his prayer for being released on bail having been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge,...
Tag this Judgment!Bisweswar Bhatia Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR536
A.K. Padhi, J.1. The claimant is the petitioner. Land measuring A. O. 14 decimals in Podapada mouza was acquired by the Government belonging to the claimant for construction of National Highway No. 42. The award was passed Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereafter the claimant filed execution case for execution of the award passed in L. A. Misc. Case No. 5 of 1986. The Subordinate Judge rejected the execution petition as not maintainable because be was of the opinion that fixation of valuation by the Court Under Section 18 of the Act being in the nature of a declaratory decree was not executable and dismissed the execution petition. This order is an assailed in this Civil Revision.2. While passing such order, as it appears, the trial Court lost sight of Section 26(2) of the Act, Section 26(a) of the Act was acted by Amending Act 15/21 to make an award by the Court a decree and the grounds of award a judgment. The effect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa State Financial Corporation Vs. Azad Auto Servicing Garage and ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR541
A.K. Padhi, J.1. The Orissa State Financial Corporation is the petitioner. It had filed an application Under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (Act No. 63 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Judge, Phulbani for enforcement of the liability of opp. parties 1, 2 and 3 for an amount of Rs. 11,716. 60 with interest. The application filed Under Section 31 of the Act was registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1989. As it is disclosed from the order sheet, office note was that the matter should have been registered as money suit as the prayer is for money decree. The same objection was over-ruled. The order sheet disclosed that the matter was adjourned several times as the Presiding Officer was either not available or he had no time. On 15-3-1991 the order sheet records that the Court directed to amend the prayer portion of the petition to bring it within the ambit of Section 31 of the Act. The matter was taken up on 20-6-1991 for consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Cuttack and anr. Vs. Beharilal Shyams ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ori302
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment in a suit for injunction. Plaintiff filed the suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from disconnecting the telephone number Cuttack 21 127 for non-payment of arrear dues in respect of Phone number Cuttack 1995 as the plaintiff have no connection with aforesaid telephone number Cuttack 1995. Plaintiffs case in brief is that he was the Managing Partner of Messrs Beharilal Shyamsunder and was the subscriber of Telephone number CK-21127 and was regularly paying all the dues in respect of the said telephone. There was no default on his part in paying the bills, but he received a notice on 7-11-1979 from the authorities of the Telephone Department wherein it was mentioned that the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,247.30 in respect of Telephone Number CK-1995 if not paid by 20-11-1979 then the plaintiffs telephone number Ck-21127 would be disconnected. It was alleged in the plaint that telephone ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Sah Vs. Netra Sah (Having Died) Hadu Sah and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR106
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of 'B' Schedule property or, alternatively, for partition of 'A' Schedule properties into five equal shares and allotting the plaintiffs' 2/5ths share.2. Plaintiffs' case in nutshell is that the common ancestor Dhubai had six sons, but one of the sons, Kaibalya died issueless. The other five sons are Kara, Hari, Usta, Panchu and Puina. Kara's son is Bhuja and Bhuja's son Fakira is defendant No. 1. Hari's son Netra is plaintiff No. 1 and Panchu's son Bhulku is plaintiff No. 2. It is alleged in the plaint that the entire 'A' Schedule lands were the lands which Dhubai was enjoying by rendering service as Jhankari, a village Police. There had been a partition in the family amongst the five sons of Dhubai, but the Jhankari service lands described in Schedule-A had not been partitioned. But by an amicable arrangement, part of 'A' Schedule lands descr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Ghose Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ori143
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The present letters patent appeal under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been filed by the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20 of 1980 which has been disposed of by the judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge of this court dated 25-4-1990.The Misc.Appeal was filed against the order of the District Judge, Cuttack passed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said order had been passed by the District Judge at the instance of the State Financial Corporation directing confirmation of the orders of injunction and attachment of the appellant's properties made earlier and directing sale of the said attached properties to be made is accordance with provisions of Section 32(7) of the Act. The facts as revealed from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence that was led by them are that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekhar Mohanty and ors. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-22-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3052
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Accused persons are petitioners in this revision against order of summoning witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet.2. On information by P.W. 1 on 26-4-1990 against petitioners, they were charge-sheeted after investigation to be tried for offences under Sections 147/148/430/436/294/506 Indian Penal Code. Petitioners were committed to Court of Session for facing trial in respect of offences under Sections 436/437 and 147 Indian Penal Code. When the Investigating Officer was being examined as P.W. 11, learned Associate Public Prosecutor filed an application praying to summon two witnesses in exercise of power under Section 311, Cr. P.C. Subsequently another application was filed by learned Associate Public Prosecutor to summon another two witnesses. Learned trial Judge refused to summon those witnesses on objection of the accused persons. Thereafter an additional charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate under Section 173(8), Cr. P.C. Learne...
Tag this Judgment!Haladhar Majhi Vs. Balaram Majhi and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-18-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR501
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and allotment of his one-fourth share and sought for relief Under Section 4 of the Partition Act to re-purchase the undivided ancestral property from defendant No. 8 with respect to Schedule -Kha property. Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 are descendants of the common ancestor Banamaii and defendant No. 8 is a stranger to the family. Defendant No. 8 got a registered sale deed in respect of the undivided ancestral homestead property from defendant No. 1 on 14-2-1978 in respect of Schedule-Khar property of the plaint which comprises of a part of the residential house and the tank appurtenant thereto and the plaintiff is entitled to protection of Section 4 of the Partition Act.2. The defendants contested the suit challenging the share- claimed by the plaintiff and it was further contended that though defendant No. 1 had sold his share of ho...
Tag this Judgment!Dhruba Charan Nayak and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR481
ORDERK.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. This revision has been filed by the petitioners alleging that they have been called upon to stand their trial in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1992 pending in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara for the offences punishable Under Sections 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to Rajkanika P. S. Case No. 68 of 1991 and G.R. Case No. 683 of 1991 of the Court of the SDJM, Kendrapara. Another counter complaint case from the side of the accused persons bearing ICC Case No. 24 of 1993 is now pending in the Court of the SDJM, Kendrapara which is fixed to 23-2-1993 lor inquiry Under Section 202, Cr PC.2. The allegation of the petitioners is that since the law is well settled that the case and the counter case should be heard simult- aneously, it would cause great prejudice to them if the ST No. 2 of 1992 would proceed much in advance and the hearing of the complaint case is delayed. Though a petition was filed before the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Charan Mohanty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Ori176; II(1993)DMC451; 1993(II)OLR252
Hansaria, C.J.1. A Hindu husband, who is a citizen of India, makes a grievance that though he has no choice insofar as application of Section 125, Cr. P. C. dealing with grant of maintenance, inter alia, to divorced wives is concerned, his counterpart, if he be a Muslim, has option because of what has been provided in Section 5 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), and so, he is being discriminated against solely on the ground of religion which violates the mandate of Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The prayer, therefore, is that Section 5 of the Act should be struck down.2. Article 15 is a facet of equality promised by Article 14 and to see that equality prevails, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth by stating that the State shall notdiscriminate against any citizen only on these grounds. To put it differently, Article 14 guarantees the general right of equality; and Arti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »