Orissa Court February 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.
Smt. Sukuri Dei and anr. Vs. Makara Sahu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR532
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The present appellants were the defendants in the suit bearing Title Suit No. 43/86 (T. S. No. 14/84) in the Court of the Munsif, Anandapur. The defendants preferred this Second Appeal against the confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land and for partition of the suit land from the share of defendant No. t and also for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff's case as stated in the plaint is that one Sansei Sahu was the owner of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are the daughter and the adopted son respectively of the said Sansei Sahu. There was partition between Sansei and his adopted son defendant No. 2. Though the date of partition is not indicated in the plaint, in the additional written statement dated 4-3-1987 of the defendants 1 and 2. it had been alleged that the partition was d...
Camma Textile Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-25-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT851; 1994(I)OLR429
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ application is whether 'the opp. parties have made any unequivocal promise to the petitioner to grant some amount as subsidy pursuant to which the petitioner started the industry and invested a huge sum and, therefore, the opp. parties are bound by the promise held out to the petitioner and are not entitled to back out from the promise on the ground that the Government of India itself reduced the amount of subsidy. In other words, whether the principle of promissory estoppel can at all be applied and could be enforced by way of a writ of mandamus.2. The short compass within which the aforesaid principle arises for determination is that the Government of Orissa has been announcing several incentives in the form of tax concession as well as subsidy to those entrepreneurs who decide to set up industries within the State of Orissa and those are called the Industrial Policies. The industrial policies of the State an...
Ashok Kumar Moharana Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR525
G.T. Nanavati, C.J.1. While this revision application was heard by our learned brother Pasayat. J., a question arose as to whether the convicted accused in this case can be given benefit Under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It appears that it was contended on behalf of the State that as the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been applied in the State of Orissa. Section 360 of the Code is no longer applicable in State. In support of that contention, that decision of this Court in Brundaban Misra and Anr. v. Kalu Misra, 75(1993) CLT 467 was cited In that case, our learned brother K. C. Jagadeb Roy, J. after considering the effect of Section 193 the Act held that the provision contained in Section 360 of the Code are not applicable in the state of Orissa as the Act has no been brought into force throughout the State Pasayat, J. doubted correctness of that judgment and for that reason this revision application is placed before us for...
Gourang Charan Khuntis Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori123
L. Rath, J.1. An order passed under Section 115(6) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') removing the petitioner as Sarpanch of Beri Gram Panchayat is the occasion for filing this application. That Section vests power in the Collector (opposite party No. 2) that if he is of the opinion that the Sarpanch has failed in convening any meeting of the Gram Panchayat within a period of three continues months he may, after enquiry as deemed fit, pass orders removing him from office and may also declare him not eligible for election as a member for a period not exceeding one year. By the impugned order the petitioner has also been debarred for one year with effect from 18-10-1993 to be eligible for election to the office of the Sarpanch. Before the order was passed notice was issued to him on 10-5-1993, Annexure 5 to the petition, by the District Panchayat Officer to show cause against suspension/removal since it had been noticed that he was not found in ...
Padan Majhi and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR446
A. Pasayat, J.1. Four petitioners faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable Under Section 341/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short, 'IPC'). They were found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 323 read with Section 34,IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months each and fine of Rs. 200/- each with a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount if realised Rs. 300/- was to be paid: to the three injured persons examined as PWs 1,2 and 3.2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is that one Jayaram Kumbhar (PW 1) and accused Lalu Majhi entered into a contract pursuant to which the latter was to sell some lands for Rs. 5000/- to the former. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid. Subsequently, accused Lalu returned Rs. 3,750/- and promised to pay the balance and to that effect executed a hand-note. The amount was to be paid back on 4-6-1988. Accordingly ...
Jagdish Prasad Saha Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ori327
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Petitioner seeks for a direction to the opposite parties for refund of the amount deposited by him in respect of certain tenders for dealing with country liquor in the district of Mayurbhanj.2. Petitioner responded to the invitation for bid in respect of grant of exclusive privilege for retail sale of country liquor for the year 1993-94 on tender-cum-auction basis. The sale notice dated 4-3-1993 was issued by the Collector, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No. 2). The notice in Form A under R. 3 of the Orissa Excise (Exclusive Privilege) Rules, 1970 (in short the 'Rules') was issued on 4-3-1993. It was indicated in the notice that the consideration money was to be determined in accordance with order issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (in short the 'Act'). Petitioner did not participate in the tender-cum-auction held on 19-3-1993 in respect of five shops situated at Damodarpur, (sic), Raghunath-pur, Station Bazar and Palbani. Howe...
Parasram Agarwal and Etc. Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ori290
S.C. Mohapatra, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment assailed by each of the parties. As the appeals are to be heard by a single Judge, I heard them dispensing with preparation of paper books with consent of parties which are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Plaintiff is constituted under the Food Corporation of India Act. In kharif year 1971-72 it had monopoly right in Orissa to purchase paddy and rice which are essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act. Defendant No. 1 is owner of a rice mill in Bargarh named M/s. Govind Kailash Rice Mill. He applied to act as Purchasing-cum-Milling Agent of plaintiff for kharif year 1971-72 (1st November to 31st October, 1972). For purchasing paddy defendant No. 1 applied for advance as per Ext. 6/a. Plaintiff advanced Rs. 87,000/- on 20-12-1971, Rs. 62,000/- on 20-12-1971 and Rs. 41,000/-on 21-12-1972 executing promissory note, (Ext. 4 series) where it was stipulated that Defendant No. 1 would pay interest a...
Bibhishan Kanhar Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC43; 78(1994)CLT315
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 436 IPC by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Camp-Balliguda in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1987 (S.T. No. 6/88) by his order dated 14.7.88 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months and the period already undergone as U.T.P. was directed to be set off. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Phulbani bearing Jail Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1988 which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 2.3.89 and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court were upheld. Hence this revision.2. The facts leading to the prosecution are as follows:On 8.12.86 at 5 p.m. the accused went to the shop of the informant (P.W. 1) and asked him to give a match box on credit. Since it was evening and he was performing puja in the shop. He refused to give the match...
Sri L. Syamababu Patro Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT414; 1994(I)OLR485
L. Rath, J.1. The facts of this case reveal a sags of indecision of authorities vested with statutory and administrative powers spreading over a period of nearly quarter of a century and consequent harassment of a citizen who had thought of invoking the power of the State to allot a piece of land to him, 5 cent in, area, to construct his residential house. he being a landless and homeless person. He has been compelled to approach this Court after all that time because instead of the settlement being made, after the reports had been submitted in his favour by different officials as had been called upon to submit those, ultimately proceeding of encroachment and his consequent eviction have been decided to be resorted to. The application of the petitioner was made on 1-2-1971 to settle the land in plot No. 321/1183 from the Anabadi Khatq of the title. The application was attended to under the Orissa State Urban Land Settlement Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to a's the 'U L S. Rules') a...
Pradeep Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-09-1994
Reported in: 1994(I)OLR480
L. Rath, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is of his being not allowed 10 resume duties as a Lecturer in History in the D.G.B K. Mahavidyaiaya, whose Governing Body is opposite party No. 4 in the case, since after he completed M. Phil, Course under the Utkal University. While it is his case that he had been relieved on study leave to undergo the course, it is the case of the Governing Body that his services had been terminated with effect from 1-6-1990 by order passed on 20-6-1990 and that he is no longer in the service of the college.2. To adumbrate the facts, the petitioner joined as Lecturer in History on 27-1-1987. In 1988 the institution became aided receiving the grant-in-aid. While it is the petitioner's case that he was relieved on 5-7-1990 by orders of the Secretary passed on that day for doing M.Phil. Course under the Utkal University, it is the case of the Governing Body that the document is not genuine and that instead the petitioner's service was terminated with effect ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »