Orissa Court September 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.
Saraswati Saw Mill and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR257
G.T. Nanavati, C.J. 1. In this group of petitioner, the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1990 (for short 'the Act, and Rule 3(g)(i) of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Rules, 199i hereinafter referred to as (the Rules)' are challenged as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, if they are interpreted to mean that no saw mill or saw pit can be permitted to be established or operated within a reserved forest, protected forest or any forest area within 10 kilometres from the boundary of any such forest or forest area from the date the Act came into force. The petitioners also challenge the directions given by the Divisional Forest Officers that saw mills and saw pits within 10 kilometres of the forest area should not function and thM they should attend the office of the Divisional Forest Officers to give an undertaking as provided in the Rules and to comply with other formalities. In some of the petitions, where the...
Gokul Behari Naik Vs. Pantish Kumar Naik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC83
K.L. Issrani, J.1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the revision Court directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to his adopted son, the opposite party here.2. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the adopted son is not included in the definition and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel, for this relies on the principles laid down in AIR 1937 Rangoon 370: Ma E My a v. U Ko Ko Gyi, and AIR 1937 Madras 547: Nanu Nair v. Puthan Veettil Krthyayini Amma. The second submission of the learned Counsel is that the Trial Magistrate has rightly held that the adoption of the opposite party was under challenge in a civil suit, he should file the petition for maintenance after that civil suit is decided. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the age of the opposite party was above 18 years and, therefore, he was not entitled to maintenance. Th...
Abhi Alias Abhimanyu Rana and ors. Vs. Arjuna Charan Sutar
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR221
A. Pasayat, J.1. Main challenge of petitioners in this application is that statutory requirements of Section 210(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') were not complied with.2. Case of the petitioners in short is as follows:A complaint petition was filed by Arjuna Charan Sutar present opp. party No. 1 before learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur (in short 'SDJM') and the same was registered at ICC No. 127 of 1990. By order dated 27-7-1991 cognizance was taken of offence punishable under Section. 395 of Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). Learned Magistrate directed issue of N.B.Ws, against present petitioners. In the complaint petition, it was mentioned that information was lodged at Ghasipura Police Station on 5-7-1990 and matter was under investigation. But as no effective steps were taken against accused persons (present petitioners), Arjun (Opp. party No. 1) filed the complaint.3. Mr. S. K. Sahoo, learned counsel for petitioners has urged wit...
Gokul Behari Naik Vs. Funtish Kumar Naik
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR228
K.L. Issrani, J. 1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the revisional Court directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to his adopted son, the opposite party here.2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adopted son is not included in the definition and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC. The learned counsel, for this, relies on the principles laid down in AIR 1937 Rangoon 370 (MaE Mya v. U Ko Ko Gyi) and AIR 1937 Madras 547 (Nanu Nair v. Puthan Veettil Karthyayiari Amma). The second submission of the learned counsel is that the trial Magistrate has rightly held that since the adoption of the opposite party was under challenge in a civil suit, ha should have filed the petition for maintenance after that civil suit Is decided. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the age of the opposite party was above 18 Years and, therefore, he was not entitled t...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ593; AIR1995Ori298; 1995(I)OLR386
S.K. Mohanty, J. 1. This defendant's appealarises out of a suit for damages in respect of 81 consignments of wagon loads of cement despatched by the plaintiff company by railways to different destinations as per the schedule attached to the plaint. 2. Plaintiffs case, in brief, was that all the consignments were booked to self to different destinations and while taking delivery at the destination stations, shortage and damages to the consignments were detected. Plaintiff thereupon took delivery against damage/ shortage certificates. It is alleged that the shortage/damage was in transit due to fault and negligence of the railways. Plaintiff thereupon issued statutory notices under the Indian Railways Act and as they bore no fruit, further issued notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In spite of such notice plaintiffs claim was not settled and therefore, it brought the suit for realisation of Rs. 17,430.42 paise, being the value of the goods damaged and short delivered...
Gopal Reddy Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR224
A. Pasayat, J.1. On the accusation of having committed an offence punishable under 5ec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the Act') appellant Gopal Reddy (hereinafter described as' accused') faced trial. He was found guilty by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Puri and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of six months.2. Background facts as stated by prosecution are as follows. On 25-11-1392 while S. I. of Excise.Balugaon (PW 4) was performing patrol duty along with other members of staff near Balugaon Bazar, he got a secret information about a person carrying Ganja. He proceeded to Bus Stand and ultimately noticed accused on the road to the west of the Bus Stand with a carton over his head. Accused was detained and 5 kilograms of Ganja kept In the said carton were recovered. After drawing necessary sample, the canon box was seated. Similarly, sample packet was sealed and a...
Collector Vs. Gourisankar Bag and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR107
S.K. Mohanty, J.1. This appeal by defendant No. 1 (State of Orissa) arises out of a reversing decree passed by the District Judge, Kalahandi. The suit properties are 4 tanks. Plaintiffs (14 in number) are the grandsons and great grandsons of one Biri Gountia who was gountia of village Kandulubandh within Junagarh P. S. in the district of Kalahandi. He excavated the 4 tanks between the years 1890 and 1917.2. Plaintiffs sued the State of Orissa praying for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative recovery of possession, of the aforesaid tanks, permanent injunction in respect thereof and damages amounting to Rs. 625/-. Subsequent to filing of the suit, on the prayer of defendant No. 1 and defendants 3 to 11, they were impleaded asdefendants.3. Plaintiff's case, in brief, was that Biri Gountia excavated the 4 tanks spending his own money on his own land and was enjoying the fish and water thereof during his life-time, which was is being continued by his grand-so...
Debu Alias Debashis Alias Debabrata Tripathy Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3547
ORDERA. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of proceeding initiated by Executive Magistrate, Anandapur, in purported exercise of power under Section 110 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Code'). According to him, mandatory requirements were not observed and he has been erroneously directed to furnish bond and thereafter because of non-furnishing of bond, has been remanded to custody. Learned counsel for the State supports the action.2. Background facts as stated by petitioner are essentially as follow. Petitioner was produced in custody by Qfficer-in-charge, Anandapur Police Station through Court Sub-Inspector, Anandapur before Executive Magistrate. Order dated 6-5-1994 shows that charges were read over and explained to the petitioner and since he did not plead guilty and wanted to be tried, he was directed to furnish bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two local sureties for the said amount. It was stipulated that in case of failure to furnish bond, he was to be re...
M.D. Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori52
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The seizure of the industrial unit called M/s. Incast Metals (P.) Limited, in exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by opposite parties 2 and 3 is being assailed by the petitioner with the further prayer that they may be directed to release the unit in favour of the petitioner and opposite parties 1 to 6 be directed to implement the rehabilitation package for revamping the unit.2. The petitioner's case in nutshell is that the industrial unit in question is a joint venture of the petitioner and the Orissa Small Industries Corporation. It manufactures sophisticated high-precision castings in stainless steel and other special alloys which are supplied to vital industries in the national sector like Defence, Aerospace, Telecommunication, Railways etc. The entrepreneur has been successful in utilising materials available in the State of Orissa for the manufacture of the goods which has helped...
Animal Feeds Diaries and Chemicals Limited Vs. Orissa State (Preventio ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori84; 1995(I)OLR28
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. These two writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment since they involve common question of .law. in 1975 the petitioner had set up a factory for manufacture of cattle and poultry feed in village Jharpada within the Municipal limits of Bhubaneswar. On 8-7-1986 the Government of Orissa issued a notification in exercise of power under Section 19(1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Air Pollution Act') declaring the areas and premises of the industry coming under the air pollution control areas. Cattle and poultry feed did not find place in the said notification. On 28-3-1988 the Government of India appointed the first day of April, 1988 as the date on which all the provisions of the Air Pollution (Amendment) Act, 1987 except the provisions contained in Clauses II and IV of Sections 2, 3, Clause (1) of Section 4 and Section 15 came into force in the whole of India. Oppo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »