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.
Haramani Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Smt. Annapurna Sahoo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR89
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioners call in question legality of or Jar passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, refusing to accept petitioners' prayer to set aside ex parte decree passed in O.S. No. 25 of 1988 and order passed by learned District Judge, Puri, in Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 1993 affirming the aforesaid order.2. A brief reference to the factual position, which is almost undisputed, is necessary for disposal of this application. Opposite party filed the suit in question for specific performance of contract. Petitioners were impleaded as defendants. A joint written statement was filed by them. On 19-1-1990 issues were settled and suit was posted to 28-3 1990 for fixing date of hearing. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to. time and was finally posted for hearing to 20-4-1992. On that day, memorandum of appearance was the plaintiff -oppsite party who was present with witnesses. They were examined and certain documents were marked as exhibits. Advocate for the petitioner...
Bishnu Mohan Senapati Vs. Harihar Mallick and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-06-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)16; 78(1994)CLT1007; 1995(I)OLR240
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality and propriety of a notice styled as a summon in case of contempt under Section 330, CrPC' issued by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Sundargarh. Record of the connected case (Misc. Case No.1 of 1991) reveals that the action taken by the Executive Magistrate is thoroughly misconceived, Basis of the notice, as appears from the order dated 13-5-1991,1st that, while the Executive Magistrate was going, on 9-5-1991 at 11.30 a.m. in a rickshaw, the present petitioner who was Headmaster at a school in Bhadrak obstructed him misbehaved with him and shouted at him This according to the Executive Magistrate, constituted obstructed and misbehavior as a result of which he could not proceed to Sundargarh to perform his duties as Executive Magistrate. This was construed to be (a) prevention of the Executive Magistrate in the matter of performance of his duties, and (b) willful contempt the order sheet shows that action was taken under Section 345...
Ashoka Sa and anr. Vs. Bidyadhar Patra (Deceased by Lrs.) and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ori59; 78(1994)CLT970; 1995(I)OLR283
R.K. Patra, J. 1. Defendants Nos. 4 and 6 are in appeal against the confirming judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Anandapur decreeing the respondent No. 1's suit to the effect that Naguni Sa (defendant No. 3 -- respondent No. 4) and not Ashoka (defendant No. 4 -- appellant No. 1) is the adopted son of Kusei Sa. 2. The case of the original plaintiff Bidyadhar (since dead) is that as Kusei Sa and his wife (widow) Arati Dei (defendant No. 2 and since dead) had no issue, they proposed to the plaintiff to give his natural son Maguni in adoption to them. The plaintiff accepted the proposal. Accordingly he and his wife gave Maguni in adoption to Kusei and Arati in accordance with the caste system. There was giving and taking ceremony on the 21st birth day of Maguni. After Maguni was taken in adoption, he continued to remain in the house of Kusei who got him admitted in the school and got educated. Maguni looked after their cultivation. On Kusei's death on 11-10-1981, he performed the ...
Kuni Patro Vs. Keshab Patro
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR586
K.L. Issrani, J.1. This petition has been filed by the wife against the orders passed by the Courts below rejecting her application for grant of maintenance Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that in her letters Exts. A and B she refused to come and live with her husband (opposite party).2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of her letters and approaches and her categorical statement that she is ready and willing to live with the opposite party and perform her conjugal rights, the Courts below have refused for grant of maintenance which is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside.3. There is no appearance on behalf of the husband-opposite party though served. I have gone through the statement of witnesses and also the letters (Exts. A and B). In the written-statement. the husband challenges the chastity of the wife and states that she is of bad character. It has also come on record that it was the opposite party- husb...
Bijay Kumar Behera and anr. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(II)OLR604
A. Pasayat, J.1. The sole question of law to be adjudicated in this case relates to the , period of currency of an order of bail. Under a misapprehension the petitioners had earlier rushed to this Court for protection, and that is how they have landed themselves in the soup.2. In a nutshell background facts are as follows :On the basis of an information lodged by one Kanakalata Behera, Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 277 of 1991 was registered against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable undar Sections 498A and 306 read with Sec, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Dowry Act'). Corresponding G.R. Case No. 666 of 1991 was registered in the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, jagatsinghpur (in short, 'SDJM'). Petitioners moved for' bail before learned SDJM which was rejected. However, such prayer was accepted by learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack. After completion of investigation, the ...
Rajendranath Chouhan Vs. Ratnakar Jagati
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR250
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's grievance is that learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'JMFC') was not justified in taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short, 'IPC') During trial petitioner prayed before learned JMFC in ICC Case No. 112 of 1987 to quash the cognizance so far as it relates to said offences. Learned JMFC rejected the prayer on the ground that making of such prayer was out of question at t e stage of trial. 2. Mr. B. Sahu learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while taking cognizance of the offence under Sec 211, IPC, learned SDJM did not keep in view Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). Further, according to him, ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 are squarely absent. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that cognizance was taken in October, 1987. There has been considerable delay in...
Jagannath Sahu Vs. Sasibhusan Rath and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4070; 1994(II)OLR617
A. Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner's complaint alleging commission of offence punishable Under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') having been rejected by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur (in short, SDJM) in I C C No , 135,of 1993, this application has been filed for interference. Petitioner had alleged that his wife (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') lost her life on account of negligence of opposite parties.2. The oft repeated question of requirement of sanction is the only question which needs adjudication in this case. Incidentally, the conclusion that no prima facie case for taking cognisance falls to scrutiny.Petitioner as complainant filed the aforesaid case making the following allegations :On 22-7-1992 opp. party Nos. 3 and 4 suggested to petitioner that deceased should undergo family planning operation after termination of pregnancy. Petitioner agreed to such operation, which was undertaken by opp, party No. 1. ...
Orissa Forest Development Corpn. and anr. Vs. Regional P.F. Commission ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR338]; (1995)ILLJ936Ori; 1995(I)OLR116
G.B. Patnaik, J. 1. The initiation of a proceeding under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19) of 1952 and levy of penalty by the Provident Fund Commissioner are being challenged in this writ application. The proceeding in question was initiated in 1992 for the default committed during the period 1971 to 1980 and then 1987 to 1989. The main ground on which the petitioners assail the initiation and levy of damages is that even though no period of limitation has been prescribed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), but the same not having been exercised within a reasonable period, the initiation is bad in law and, therefore, the levy must be struck down. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the Bench decision of this Court in OJC No. 503 of 1991 (disposed of on April 7, 1993). In the aforesaid case relying on the decision in...
Binay Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT901; 1994(II)OLR508
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. This writ application is in the nature of a public interest litigation wherein the authority of the State Government as well as the Cuttack Development Authority to impose a fee called 'front-end-fee' of Rs. 5.000/- as a condition precedent for approval of a building plan is being challenged.2. It is contended that when a citizen seeks permission to construct a house in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, it is not open for the competent authority to demand a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as front-end-fee as a condition precedent for applying for permission as neither the statute nor the rules made there- under authorise the levy in question It is further contended that such levy is arbitrary and grossly excessive, unreasonable and is a whimsical act of the authorities and consequently must be held to be unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative and must be struck down. The order of the Planning Member of the Cuttack Development Authority ...
Kshitish Chandra Pati and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: 78(1994)CLT967; 1994(II)OLR534
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. The order of the Inspector of Schools approving the services of the petitioners from the date the institution became eligible to receive grant-in-aid and not from the data of their actual appointment as teachers is being challenged in this writ application.2. It is alleged in the writ application that Kalinga Nagar High School under Keonjhar Education Circle was established in the year 1975 and the State Government granted recognition in 1973. The School became eligible to receive minimum grant-in-aid with effect from 1.-3-1983 and it cams to the fold of Direct-Payment-System with effect 1rom 1-3-1986. With effect from 1-3-1986 the teaching and non- teaching mambers of the staff have been receiving their monthly salaries directly from the Inspector in acccordance with Rule 9 of the Orissa Education (Recuritment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided educationl Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »