Orissa Court December 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.
Sanatan Behera Vs. Paramananda Behera and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR404
S. Chatterji, J. 1. The present Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant, Sanatan Behera, is against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak affirming the judgment and decree dated 29-3-1985 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak in O. S. No. 68 of 1978.2. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 68 of 1978 seeking the relief for partition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bhadrak. It is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 constituted a joint family. According to the plaint case, there are two branches namely, Govinda Behera and Pahali Behera having equal interest in the property. Govinda died leaving behind three sons, Karuni, Basu and Kasi. Kasi is alleged to have deserted the village leaving behind no heir. Defendant No. 1 Paramananda is the son of Basu and defendants 2 to 5 are the heirs of Karuni, Pahali of the other branch left behind two sons, namely, Bhavan and Mani....
Laxmidhar Pati and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT487; 1996(I)OLR152
S. Chatterji, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the present writ application made an order on 16-3-1995 to request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench in resolving the apparent inconsistencies between two decisions of this Court, one reported in 1993 (I) OLR 77 (Jalada Delang Uchha Bidyapith v. State of Orissa and Ors.) wherein a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that since the entitlement to receive aid flows from the order of the Government, until and unless an order is passed no right is accrued and on mere satisfying the eligibility qualification an institution cannot claim the grant-in-aid, and the second one by another Division Bench reported in 1995 (I) OLR 310 (Kartik Ch. Mohanta and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors.) wherein it has been held that a school when stisfies the pre-conditions contained in the grant-in-aid principles would become entitled to grant-in-aid and, therefore. Government must release grant-in-...
Dhadi Parida (and After Him) Sundari Parida and ors. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT477; 1996(I)OLR345
D.P. Mohapatra, A.C.J. 1. On being referred by Division Bench, these cases have been placed before us to consider the question as to whether the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1992 (II) OLR 330 (Khetramohan Rout and Ors. v. Sri Sri Nageswar Mahadev and Ors.) requires 'rethinking', it goes without saying that if the question is answered in the affirmative, the matter is to be placed before a larger Bench.2. The relevant portion of the reference order reads as follows : 'In our view. Section 8-B merely empowers the named authorities therein to exercise powers under any of the provisions of the Act on being satisfied that the institution in question is a public religious institution. While exercising such powers under any specific provision of the Act, the authority exercising the power has to examine whether power under that particular povision is available to be exercised. Section 8-B cannot afford any further power or lend any assistance to the named authorities f...
Priti Ranjan Pradhan and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT505; 1996(I)OLR145
D.P. Mohapatra, A.C.J. 1. In these cases the question that arises for our consideration is whether the Full Bench decision in the case of Golakh Chandra Mohanty and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1993 (I) OLR 303, requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. The relevant portion of the reference order passed by the Division Bench reads:'Prima facie the contention raised on behalf of the State Government is fully supported by the decision of the aforesaid Full Bench case. But to us it appears that it would create great harassment to all those teachers who were appointed as Headmasters of the different unaided schools when there was no embargo for their appointment.'2. The facts of the case relevant for determination of the aforementioned question may be shortly stated thus : The petitioners were appointed as Headmasters of recognised, unaided High Schools. At the time of appointment, they did not possess the requisite eligibility qualification for holding the post of Headmaster of High...
Md. Sher Bahadur Khan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1905
A. Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals are interlinked as Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1995, is by Ajmer Khan and Md. Slier Bahadur Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' by name) while Jail Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1995, is by accused Mr. Sher Bahadur Khan. This judgment shall govern both the appeals.2. Challenge in these two appeals is to legality of judgment and order dated 16-12-1994, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1993, (S. C. No. 365 of 1992, of Sessions Judge, Jeypore). Each of the accused was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, iPC), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.Nine persons including the accused-appellants faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/109, read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 5(2)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, (in short, 'the Explosives Act').3. Prosecution vers...
Narayan Sahu and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Endowments and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT694; 1996(I)OLR279
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ application challenge legality of the order dated 6-11-1995, passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, purportedly under Section 7 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (In short 'the Act').2. Background facts as asserted by the petitioners leading to filing of the writ petition are essentially as follows :By the order dated 16-4-1993, a Board of non-hereditary trustees was constituted and petitioner No. 1 was elected as the Managing Trusted of the religious institution, the deity Shri Ganeswar Jew. By letter dated 31-5-1995, certain names were suggested by the Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments Berhampur for constitution of a Trust Board in respect of the aforesaid institution. The matter is stated to be pending consideration by the Government, m the mean-time, in purported exercise of power under Section 7 of the Act, an interim Trust Board has been constituted with the stipulation that the said Trust Board will continue...
Kalindi Charan Behera Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori155
Pasayat, J.1. Petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the Director of Higher Education, Orissa regarding withdrawal of nomination of petitioner as President of the Governing Body of Maha-purusha Achyutananda Mahavidyalaya, Lomalo in the district of Cuttack with immediate effect, and that the Collector, Cuttack is to be ex officio President of the Governing Body of the said institution from the date of issuance of the order. The impugned order is purported to have been passed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25(l)(i) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991 (in short, 'the Rules') framed under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, 'the Act').2. The factual postion is almost undisputed, and the controversy lies within a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, withdrawal of nomination of the petitioner as President is illegal as no reason has been indicated for such withdrawal. There was no p...
Srikanta Kumar Panda Vs. Saratulla Khan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2104
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. The petitioner, a police officer, by filing the present Criminal Misc. case under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has invoked the inherent power of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding in ICC No. 35 of 1982 pending against him in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banpur.2. The complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'opposite party') in the aforesaid Complaint Case is a driver of a Matador vehicle bearing registration No. ODI 2598. It is alleged that on 10-9-1982 while he was returning from Banpur Court, the Sub-Inspector of Banpur P.S. asked him to come to the police station with the said vehicle. Accordingly he came to the police station where the officer-in-charge seized the vehicle and detained him. On the next day the petitioner who was also a Police Sub-Inspector of that police station assaulted and threatened him to make a confessional statement that on 19-8-1982 one Ajay Pradhan was carrying illicit leak wood in his Matador Van. When he re...
Srimati Kunni Devi Agarwal Vs. Mohammed Parvej
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR170
P. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff-opposite party Mohammed Parvej filed a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge (now Civil Judge, Senior Division), Rourkela, for pre-emption of a sale of a shop room in favour of the defendant-petitioner by a registered sale deed dated November 16,1988. From the pleadings of the parties it appears that the shop room originally belonged to Md. Umer and the defendant-petitioner was a tenant in respect of the said shop room. It also appears that the relevant sale deed was executed on November 16, 1983. The same was copied out and delivered on March 29, 1990. The pre-emptor-plaintiff has also alleged that on the date of execution of the deed, i. e. November 16, 1988, he advanced his claim of right of pre-emption and demanded re-sale of the property to him and again on March 29, 1990, i.e. the date of delivery of the registered document, he demanded the resale of the property affirming his previous demand. The suit for pre-emption was filed on June 24, 1991.2. The pre...
Pratap Alias Pratap Kishore Bisi Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT522; 1996(I)OLR302
A. Pasayat, J. 1. It is stated by Mr. Subrata Ghose on instruction that appellant Pratap alias Pratap Kishore Bisi (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') has breathed his last on 6-6-1995. He was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In Short. 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for fife for the former in S. T. Case No. 127/122 of 1992-93 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. No separate sentence was awarded for the conviction under Section 307, IPC.2. Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, the 'Code') deals with abatement of appeals. It provides that every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 394 every other appeal under Chapter XXIX of the Code, except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. Every other appeal except an appeal from a sentence of fine aba...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »