Orissa Court November 1995 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.
Pravakar Gochhayat and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)10; 81(1996)CLT175; 1996(I)OLR75
R.K. Dash, J. 1. The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') faced trial under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in G. R. Case No. 2286 of 1990, Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar, on consideration of the evidence adduced while convicting the accused persons of the offence under Section 323/34, IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month, acquitted them of the offence under Section 34, IPC. On appeal being preferred against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the learned additional Sessions Judge on a re-appraisal of the evidence concurred with the findings of the trial Court, but so far as sentence is concerned, he reduced the period of rigorous imprisonment from three months to one month. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments of both the. Courts below the ac...
Eric Alvares Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR25
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Encroachment Case No. 9 of 1982 was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act') on the basis that he was in unauthorised possession of Government land. A reference to few dates would suffice. The proceeding was initiated on 6-2-1982. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time. On most of the dates the petitioner was present. On 9-2-1387 the case was put up before the Tahasildar. Prior to that date, i. e., on 30-9-1986 the petitioner was present. By that date the enquiry report from the Revenue Inspector was not received, and the matter was adjourned to 31-10-1986 awaiting the report. Thereafter nothing appears to have taken place, and on 3-2-1987 the case record was put up before the Tahasildar. Since that was not the date to which the case was posted, question of petitioner's presence did not arise. The matter was posted to 24-2-1987 by Tahasildar. On the said date the peti...
Mst. Surya Rana Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR180
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in this writ application is primarily to legality of action taken in terms of Rule-38-A(2)(bb) read with Rule 38-A (10) (bb) of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules') framed under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 1960 (in short 'the Act'). A detailed reference to the factual setting is unnecessary.2. Undisputed facts are as follows :Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Sambalpur, by his order dated 31-3-1977 in O. L. R. Lease Case No. 8/77 settled Ac. 2.85 decimals of land in favour of one Udhaba Rana, the husband of the present petitioner. The purported action leading to cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioner's husband was taken on the basis of allegation made by certain persons of village Ghodadihi in the year 1991. Collector, Sambalpur on receipt of the allegation, forwarded the same to the Tahasildar for inquiry, on the basis of which Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991 was initiated. After inquiry it was found that the claim of...
J.P. Stores Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT227
S. Chattarji, J. 1. The present miscellaneous appeal under the provisions of the Arbitration Act at the instance of the opposite party 'in the Court below challenges the impugned order dated 20-8-1991 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Horapara in O.S. No. 6 of 1991. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He entertained the objection for setting aside an award under the Arbitration Act. There is delay of 70 days in filing the objection, as envisaged under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, Admittedly, an arbitration is pending for over 18 years. The award has been made on a notice given beyond the appropriate time and being aggrieved thereby, steps were taken for filing objection. However, on account of the delay, there is a prayer for condonation of delay by way of filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge recording t...
Bijayaketan Das Vs. Utkal University and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori153; 81(1996)CLT324
Pasayat, J.1. Non-declaration of results of annual Inter Law Examination and Final Law Examination has brought petitioner before this Court. Petitioner appeared as a candidate at the annual Inter Law Examination conducted by Utkal University (hereinafter referred to as 'University') in May, 1992. Subsequently, he appeared at the annual Final Examination held in April, 1993. His results were not declared and were withhald. When petitioner met the functionaries of University, he was told that his answer script in respect of Paper IV of Inter Law Examination was not available and therefore, results were not published. He made an application to the Controller of Examinations who by letter dated 24-4-1994, requested the Principal of Gangadhar Mohapatra Law College, Puri to furnish copy of memo form sent to the University by the Centre Superintendent containing roll numbers of candidates whose answer papers had been sent to the University authorities for valuation, and the attendance sheet o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›