Orissa Court January 1994 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.
Gopinath Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR276
G.T. Nanavati, A.C.J.1. In this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, the owner of the motor truck bearing registration No. ORP 1346, has challenged the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Ghumsur South Division, Under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. He has also challenged the order passed by the Court of District Judge, Ganjam, in the appeal filed against the above order.2. On 21-6-1977 at about 2-15 a. m., the mobile party of the Government of Orissa attached to the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhanjanagar, noticed to above motor truck proceeding in the direction of Digapahandi from the side of Godahada dam project. It was found to be carrying 5000 pieces of green salia and pananali bamboos. On demand, neither the driver Nimai Charan Panda, nor the persons found in the truck could produce any pass or permit authorising them to carry forest produce in the said truck. T...
Narasingha Charan Mohanty Vs. the Orissa Small Industries Corporation ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR450
L. Rath, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is against refusal of the opposite party Corporation to promote him to the post of Manager while absorbing opp. parties 4 and 5 as Managars on 16-11-1991. The petitioner complains of he having been kept out of promotion on untenable grounds while discrimination was practised in fovour of opp. parties 4 and 5 to absorb them in the posts of Manager. While hearing the case, oral complaint was also made regarding promotion of one G. P. Mishra, a junior to the petitioner, on 1-12-1992 and recruitment of one Sudhakar Pahi. an outsider, as Managers, but since these persons have not been made parties to this case we do not intend to interfere with their promotions. The brief facts are that the petitioner was originally appointed on 29-5-1981 by way of direct recruitment as an Assistant Manager in the opposite party Corporation on probation for two years but after expiry of the period of probation no order was passed extending it and later on his se...
Majura Naik Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2765
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Accused is petitioner in this revision against appellate order confirming his conviction under Section 224 IPC sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months.2. Revision application was to be filed within 90 days. Stamp Reporter pointed out that there is delay of 197 days to condone which application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. Only ground is that petitioner is a poor man who could not know about dismissal of the appeal as he had gone away to Bihar to earn his livelihood and on return to village he contacted his Advocate and knew the result. Said petition having been sworn to by Advocate's Clerk was withdrawn to file a better petition. A fresh petition sworn to by petitioner has been filed on the self same grounds. When the said application came up for orders I was not prima facie satisfied that a sufficient cause has been made out. However, there being substantive sentence against petitioner. I called upon learned counsel to make subm...
J.M. Graphite Mining and Manufacturing Company Vs. Orissa State Electr ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ori224
L. Rath, J.1. The dispute raised in the present petition is the bills raised against the petitioner, a small scale industrial unit, for the electrical energy supplied during the period November, 1983 to October, 1988. The brief facts to introduce the case are that originally the petitioner had an agreement with the Board for supply of electricity for contract demand of 94 H. P. but later on as its power requirement increased, an agreement was executed by it With the Board on 10-2-1983 for supply of 194 H. P. and the petitioner also installed necessary equipment for consumption of such energy. It is the petitioner's case that even though a 250 KV A Transformer was installed, yet in fact the Board was never in a position to supply current up to the extent of the contract demand and that it continued to supply the petitioner current only on the basis of the contract demand of 94 H. P. arid the surplus power was being utilised for other purposes. Even so bill as in Annexure 2 was raised on...
Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra Vs. Jaya Krushna Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ori173; 1994(I)OLR280
1. In a fight between son the appellant and father (respondent No. 1), the role of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been described to be that of abettors in the act of alleged violation of order of injunction passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. The appellant as plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 278 of 1987 before the learned Subordinate Judge praying for a decree of partition of the suit property, claiming one-third share in respect of the ground floor and full interest in respect of the first floor. Respondent No. 1 is defendant No. 1, and his wife is defendant No. 2. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') seeking temporary injunction, wherein respondent No. 1 was impleadcd as the sole opposite party. The prayer in essence was to restrain the said opposite party, defendant No. 2 and agents from alienating the property in any manner till final disposal of the suit. By order dated 21-10-1987 an order...
Amal Kumar Prathihari Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT360; 1994(I)OLR441
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh in 3 (a)CC No. 19/90 against the present petitioner for the alleged offence Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two months. The said order has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No. 36/39 of 1992 of order dated 28-11-1992.2. The case of the prosecution briefly 9tated is that at about 11.00 A. M. on 31-8-1989, the Food Inspector, Rourkela inspected the shop of the petitioner situated in Ispat market, Rourkela suspecting that mustard oil kept in the shop in tins was adulterated when the petitioner was present in the shop. The Pood Inspector having served the notice on the petitioner expressed his intention to take sample ...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinabandhu Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ori77; 1994(I)OLR464
Pasayat, J. 1. The effect of failure of a person to whom ownership of a motor vehicle has been transferred together with concerned policy of insurance to apply to the insurer in the prescribed manner is the subject-matter of controversy in both the appeals. The points of law and facts situation being identical, both are disposed of by this judgment. A learned single Judge did not consider this question to be a substantial question of law in order to attract the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the 'Act'). It was observed that in view of the provisions contained in Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Motor Act') no substantial question of law was involved. With great respect we feel that the conclusion is not appropriate, and therefore the appeals were entertained. 2. Some unnecessary details (with) the almost undisputed facts situation is as follows : Dinabandhu Pradhan and Bharat Das (hereinafter referred to as the 'cl...
Devidutta Agarwalla (Deceased by Lrs) and ors. Vs. Mohanlal Tebriwal
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ori176
ORDERS.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Plaintiff is appellant against dismissal of suit for realisation of arrear house-rent. 2. Case of plaintiff is that defendant was a monthly tenant under mm in respect of a house in Jharsuguda town within Municipal area to which Orissa House Rent Control Act was applicable. Since 1963 the monthly rent was @ Rs. 200/- payable on the first week of every month. When defendant defaulted to pay the rent from January, 1970 and initiated litigation against plaintiff and his family members, paintiff had to approach the house rent controller for eviction of defendant on the ground of wilful default in payment of monthly rent. House Rent Controller directed eviction of the defendant accepting case of plaintiff. Thereafter, this suit has been filed in the year 1973 for arrear of house rent for the period between 1-1-1970 to 30-4-1973, amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. 3. Defendant contested the suit denying the claim. While not disputing his relationship as monthly tenant, it is...
Konchada Raghunadha Rao Vs. Puspa Lolana Samulu (Dead) and After Her P ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR370
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is appellant against the preliminary decree in the suit for realisation of money based on simple mortgage.2. Case of plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 and his father took a loan of Rs. 3,400 /- from defendant No. 6 furnishing security by way of simple mortgage properties incorporated in the registered mort- gage deed dated 11-12-1965 stipulating to pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. While the mortgage was subsisting, defendant No. 6 was in need of money and transferred the mortgage receiving Rs. 3.400/-from plaintiff conveying all his rights and claims under the mortgage deed by executing a registered deed of transfer on 24-1-1967. When despite demand defendants did not pay back the amount, the suit was filed.3. Defendant No. 6 has accepted the case of the plaintiff in his written statement. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in a joint written statement accepted execution of the mortgage deed for an amount of Rs. 3,400/-. It is their case that gr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›