Orissa Court April 1993 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.
Narahari Nayak Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR112
A.K. Padhi, J.1. Decree-Holder is the petitioner arising out of an application Under Section 47, CPC. There was an arbitration proceeding in between the parties and the award of the arbitrator was made a rule of the Court in Title Suit No. 243 of 1936. Decree-Holder filed the application execution of the decree which was numbered as Execution Case No. 103 of 1988. Judgment-Debtor filed a petition Under Section 47, CPC challenging the executability of the decree under various grounds. One of the specific averments in the said petition is to the effect that in 2(c) C. C. Case No. 209 of 1986 the S. D. J. M., Cuttack had passed an order directing the J. Dr. to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,307.35 towards the liability of the D. Hr. under the Labour Contract Act and the same being a statutory liability the decree-holder is entitled to adjust the same from the decree of the Decree-Holder. It was further stated that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 65,303.68 by way of a Bank draft on 22-1...
Prafulla Chandra Rath Vs. Sri Jagannath Weavers' Co-operative Spinning ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR537
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Contractor in whose favour an award has been passed by the Arbitrator, has assailed the order of the trial Court in entertaining an application objecting to the award Under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') beyond 30 days as provided under Art. 119 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.2. The award was passed on 6-4-1992. It was sent to Court Under Section 14 of the Act on 15-4-1992. Arbitrator gave notice to the parties on 6-4-1992 intimating passing of the award and filing in Court in token of which the parties signed the order-sheet of the arbitrator. Award was submitted to Court three days after of the date fixed. On receipt of the award. Court issued notice to the opposite party in both ways for filing objection, if any fixing date of appearance and to show cause. On receipt of notice, opposite party filed objection on 15-7-1992 as stipulated in the notice. Petitioner in the Civil Revision raised objection stating that the applicati...
State of Orissa Vs. Bijaya Mohanty
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: 75(1993)CLT820; 1993CriLJ3311; 1993(I)OLR509
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. The opposite party, a police officer has faced this contempt proceeding. At the relevant time, he was the Officer-in-charge of Pattamundai Police Station. The proceeding has been initiated on a reference from the Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The allegation is that the opposite party arrested one Jadu @ Ramachandra Sahoo, who has intervened in this case and would be described herein- after as 'the intervenor', in G R. Case No. 855 of 1990 on 13-11 1990, despite a certified copy of the order dated 6-11-1990 of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, releasing the intervenor in the said case on bail having been produced before the former, which was not honoured. The defence of the contemner-opposite party is that the copy of the order in questions had not been produced, and it is only in the police station, where the intervenor had been taken afterwards, that mention was made by him about his having been released on bail. He was thereafter forwarded to the Court of the SDJM, Kendra...
Prabhu Sankar Babu Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR136
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner was engaged as a Mate by the opp. party No. 2-Corporation on 17-1-1982 on the wage of Rs. 7.50 per day at Kansbahal Earth Dam Project in the district of Siindargarh. He was then transferred to serve in the Burla Power House Project in Sambalpur district as a Time Keeper and joined thereon 12-6-1983 on daily wage of Rs. 12/- per day where he continued. He was then appointed as a Mate in the same Burla Power House Project on 1-8-1984 on daily wage of Rs. 12/-, was engaged continuously and was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 14.50 per day from 1-4-1986 to 31-3- 1988, Rs. 16/- per day from 1-4-1988 till 30-6-1990 on which date his wages become Rs. 30/- per day. This petition has been filed on 1 -2-1991 claiming the relief of payment of same scale of pay as is drawn by the regular employees of his rank and for regularisation of his service During the pendency of the case before this Court the petitioner having been retrenched from service on 23-6-1991, the fact Wa...
Gouranga Jena Vs. Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT434; 1993(II)OLR93
ORDER1. The point for consideration is whether the power conferred on the Commissioner by Section 9 (1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 (shortly called the Act') to call for records and pass orders has in any way been abridged or taken away because of the amendment in Section 27 of the Act dealing with appointment of nonhereditary trustee by Orissa Act 4 of 1992 which requires prior approval of the State Government before the Assistant Commissioner exercises his power. The Commissioner has taken the view that in such a case revision before him Under Section 9 would not be maintainable which has been assailed in this petition2. Shri Mukherjee for the petitioner submits that despite the amendment, the order remains as one of Assistant Commissioner and Section 9 (1) being widely worded has empowered the Commissioner to call and examine the records of any proceeding under the Act, inter alia, before the Assistant Commissioner, and so, the mere fact that the Assistant Comm...
Gandharba Das and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT514; 1994CriLJ294
A. Pasayat, J.1. The order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar (in short, the 'JMFC') directing issuance of notice to certain persons to appear as witnesses is the subject-matter of assail in this revision application.2. Petitioners are accused persons in GA Case No. 2043 of 1989. After evidence of prosecution and defence was recorded; the matter was posted for judgment. At that stage learned JMFC felt that for just decision of the case, it was necessary to examine two persons namely, Bana Senapati and Rabindra Kumar Das as witnesses. She felt that these two persons are material witnesses, and their evidence would be vital for just decision of the case. She noticed that summons sent earlier to the said two persons could not be served because Bana Senapati, a lady had during pendency of the case had left her parental home after marriage. So far as other witness Rabindra Kumar Das is concerned, summons came back unserved without any report. In this background, ...
Prafulla Kumar Rout and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(I)OLR493
R.K. Patra, J.1. Appellant No. 3 is the.wife of appellant No. 1. Both of them have been convicted Under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in brief 'IPC'). Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years Under Section 306 of IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years Under Section 498-A of IPC, the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant No. 2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the some period on both the counts.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants belong to Kiatenduli, a hamlet of Mruganayani under Chandabali police station, Ramakanta Rout is their son who had married Sabita alias Sabitri (hereinafter referred ta as 'the deceased') in the year 1986. At the time of marriage, father of the deceased agreed to give a cow as a dowry, but due to his poverty the promise could not be fulfilled. It is alleged that the appellants misbehaved and ill-treated the deceased from time to time an...
Gajapati Panda, Vs. Purna Chandra Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR421
L. Rath, J.1. All the three petitioners stand convicted Under Sections 419/34 and 468/34, IPC, and sentenced to R. I. for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo S. I. for one month on each count with direction that the sentences would run concurrently. The conviction and sentence were also confirmed in appeal.2. The opposite party, complainant filed the complaint on 17-1-1983 with allegations that the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 678/88 and 18/91 approached .. him on 20-1-1930 with the petitioner in Criminal Revision No, 18/91 Narayan Prasad Nayak impersonating himself as one Ramani Ranjan Patel, who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 711/88, and gave out Ramani Ranjan had purchased certain trees from some person for the felling and selling of which he was short of funds for which he desired to have the opposite party as a working partner. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 678/88, Gajapati Panda, was known to the opposite party ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›