Orissa Court August 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.
Kailash Prasad Modi Vs. Chief General Manager, Orissa Telecommunicatio ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ori98; [1995]82CompCas626(Orissa)
L. Rath, J.1. The petitioner is the subscriber of telephone No. CK 22122. A notice was received by him vide Annexure-2 dated 21/28-12-1992 that his late father B.P. Modi had a personal telephone bearing No. CK 21526 which was closed down because of non-payment of the dues amounting to Rs. 17,299.00 and he being the legal heir of his father and using the telephone, was liable to pay the outstanding dues against the closed telephone. In the letter a threat was also administered that unless the payment would be made his telephone No. 22122 and his other telephone No. CK 32683 would be disconnected. The petitioner sent reply on 1-1-1993 that his father had expired since May, !985 and that he was unaware whether telephone No.CK 21526 belonged to the company in which his father was Director or it belonged to him in his personal capacity. At any rate, he disputed his liability to clear the dues in respect of telephone No. CK 21526 and brought to the notice of the authorities that his wife was...
Palau Bag and ors. Vs. Adhikari Patra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR359
L. Rath, J.1. This case has come before us by way of reference by the learned Single Judge, The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is whether an objection is available to be raised at the execution stage to a decree on the ground of it being without jurisdiction on the plea that in the suit an order for its abatement should have been passed but on the contrary was refused illegally. The short facts necessary to elucidate the point raised are that the plaintiff-opposite parties brought the suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation and in the alterative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendant- petitioners. During the pendency of the .suit the notification Under Section 3 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act') having been issued an objection was raised by the defendants to the continuance of the s...
Chintamani Sharma Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ357
B.N. Dash, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions judge, Sambalpurm whereby he has upheld the judgment and order of the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuchinda, convicting the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code. 1860 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, with an observation that no separate sentence is necessary to be passed under Section 337, Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 13.6.1985 at about 7.00 a.m. while the jeep bearing registration No. ORS 494 was being driven by the accused-petitioner from Sambalpur towards Deogarh on the National Highway No. 6, near the village Kuruibahal, the Mining Officer of Sambalpur, PW 5 and Senior Inspector of Mines, PW 6, who were travelling in that jeep found that the jeep was being driven at more than 60 kms. per ho...
Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Shah
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ori100
Hansaria, C.J.1. Article 227 of the Constitution has given the power of superintendence to the High Courts. What is the ambit and nature of this power? Whether in a proceeding under this article, it is open to the High Court to take note of facts which were not on the record of the Court or tribunal over which the High Court exercises the power of superintendence? These are the important questions brought to the fore in this case.2. Article 227 was not written on a clean state. The ancestors of this article in the direct line are Section 15 of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Section 167 of the Government of India Act, 1915; and Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935. We may not ourselves try to find out what these sections purported to lay down, because in a very detailed decision it has been so done by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Umaji v. Radhikabai, AIR 1986 SC 1272, the sum and substance of which is that the power is not only confined to administrative supe...
Dwarika Mohanta and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(II)OLR418
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. Petitioners have assailed the legality of the orders passed by revenue authorities in a proceeding Under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.2. A ceiling surplus proceeding was initiated suo motu as no returns were filed by the alleged ceiling surplus holder which was registered as O.L.R.Case No. 98 of 1974. That proceeding was ultimately dropped by order dated 2-12-1974 on a finding by the Revenue Officer that the eldest son Hadibandhu was Major, married and separated from his father prior to the appointed day and, therefore, a separate ceiling is to be given to Hadibandhu and thus the family does not possess land in excess of the ceiling area. The said order of the Revenue Officer dropping the ceiling proceeding was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, who remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer for further enquiry. After subsequent enquiry, the Revenue Officer passed an order on 28 12-1987 coming to the conclusion that 7.92 acres of land is the sur...
Smt. Dolly Das Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ori103
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner as the lessee in respect of the disputed plot was in possession of the leasehold property on the basis of the lease deed dated 10th of August, 1964, executed by the Governor of Orissa. The lease deed indicates that the land had been leased out for industrial and commercial purposes, mainly for automobile shop room and service station. The original lessee was M/s. Kalinga Automobiles, a partnership firm, and the present petitioner is now the sole lessee. M/s. Caltex (India) Limited entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner and became the sub-lessee in respect of the disputed premises by virtue of the lease deed dated 1-10-1969 and the period oflease was 10 years commencing from 1-10-1969. The lease deed contained a clause conferring an option of renewal with the lessee for a further term of ten years to be exercised before the expiry of the term created under the original lease and it was clearly indicated in the lease deed that upon exercise o...
Bishnu Mallick Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT711; 1993CriLJ3817
ORDERL. Rath, J.1. An Assistant Sessions Judge acting as the Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur having refused the applications of the petitioner to accept his surrender and release him on bail, he has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raising the question that once an accused surrenders before the Court and files an application for bail, the Additional Sessions Judge is either to allow him to go on bail or refuse the bail and remand him to custody, but cannot pass orders refusing to accept his surrender and entertain the application for his bail. The brief facts necessary to elucidate the submission are that the petitioner is involved in an offence under Section 436, I.P.C. at the instance of the opposite party No. 2 as the informant. The police having submitted final form, the informant filed a complaint alleging offence under the same section on which after holding an inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C., the learned S.D.J.M. directed issue of s...
Kuma Dei Vs. Md. Abdul Latif
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ori111
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Heard. The short question that falls for determination in this second appeal is whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, courts below are right in holding that due execution of agreement Ext. 5 has been proved? 2. Defendant No. 1 in the suit filed the second appeal against concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the suit and directing her to execute the sale deed conveying the suit property to the plaintiff on receiving the amount stipulated in the agreement and granting certain other consequential reliefs. 3. The case of the plaintiff, shortly stated, was that two documents were executed on 15-11-75, a sale deed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and the agreement Ext. 5 by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to reconvey the self same property in his favour. The dispute arose when defendant No. 1 went back on the agreement and avoided to execute the sale deed as stipulated in it. Therefore, the plaintiff filed t...
Smt. Phula Dei and anr. Vs. Dibakar Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: 76(1993)CLT965; 1993(II)OLR505
L. Rath, J.1. The question referred to the Division Bench in this case is regarding executability of a decree passed in pursuance of this Court in Second Appeal No. 319/77 when the judgment was passed at a time when the notification Under Section 3 (1) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act') was made during the pendency of the second appeal declaring the land as consolidation area. The brief facts necessary to illustrate the question are that the opposite parties brought T.S No. 98/70 as the plaintiffs for declaration of right and title and for recovery of possession against the present petitioners as the defendants. The suit having been decreed, the petitioners carried Title Appeal No. 58/75 in which they succeeded for which the opposite parties preferred Second Appeal No. 313/77 in this Court. The notification Under Section 3(1) of the Consolidation Act was made on 28-2- 1979 but the fact was no...
Orissa State Road Trans. Corp. Vs. Bhanu Prakash Joshi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: I(1994)ACC467
A. Pasayat, J.1. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') calls in question legality of the judgment passed by the first Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kalahandi Bhawanipatna (in short, the 'Tribunal') awarding a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- to a Bhanu Prakash Joshi (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') as compensation.2. Sans unnecessary details, the factual background is as follows:A claim was lodged under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'old Act') by the claimant alleging that he sustained serious injuries on account of an accident wherein two vehicles bearing registration. Nos. OUR 3225 and ORR 2667 were involved. It was stated that both the vehicles belonged to the Corporation. He claimed to have sustained injuries on 9.8.1983 while travelling in bus No. OUR 3225 from Nawapara to Komana as a passenger. At the place of accident the road was curved. The other bus bearing registration No. ORR 2667, was coming ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »