Orissa Court March 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.
P. Rama Tilakam Devi Vs. Smt. Tekam Satyabati
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR632
P. Ray, J.1. The present revisional application is against Order dated July 18, 1992 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur allowing an application for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff opp. party filed a suit for specific performance. In the plaint the plaintiff made averment about what he had done in pursuance of the disputed agreement in order to obtain performance of the same from the defendant. I have gone through the entire plaint and it appears that the facts pleaded in the plaint and other averments made therein constitute substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Special Relief Act. The plaintiff-opp. party, however, filed the application for amendment by way of abundant caution to avoid technical objection. The trial Court allowed the said amendment placing reliance on an unreported judgment of this High Court in Civil Revision Case No. 586 of 1988 (Gudisa Trinath Rao v. Sudhansu Prasad Padhi andAnr.)3. The learned Advocate for th...
Pramod Kumar Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3573
ORDERB.N. Dash, J.1. The sole point for consideration in this revision is whether a Judicial Officer in charge of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate can order issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against an status in a case pending in that Court.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are within a narrow . They may as stated thus :- The petitioner was facing trial in G. R. Case No. 253 of 1988 for an offence under Section 489, I.P.C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrates, Juypors and during that period he was on bail. After examination of some prosecution witnesses the said case has been adjurned to 3.12-1993 for further trial, in the meantime the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having been transferred. This Court fall vacant and one S.Ch. Tripathy, obviously a Judicial Officer remained in-charge of that Court. While he was in charge, on the aforesaid date of further trial i.e. 3-12-1993, the petitioner failed to appear, as alleged by him, on the...
Damodar Prasad Mohanty Vs. Narayan Prasad Mohanty and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR654
A. Pasayat, J. 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short, the 'Code') is whether learned Second Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack was justified in accepting prayer for discharge of Receiver after preliminary decree was passed in a suit for partition. Learned Civil Judge was of the view that there being no specific order in the judgment regarding continuance of the Revenue Inspector, Kanakpur who was appointed as Receiver during pendency of the suit, he was to be discharged from Receivership, According to learned counsel for petitioner, the impugned order is against principle governing Receivership.2. There is no appearance on behalf of the opp. parties in spite of notice.3. Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient, it may appoint a receiver for any property. The circumstances and facts of each case have to be gone into for appointment of a receiver. No hard and fast ...
Sudhir Kumar Lala and ors. Vs. Laxmidhar Lala and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR628
P. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff appellants filed a suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1979 executed by their predecessor Dayanidhi Lala was fraudulent, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, for declaration of the plaintiffs' title in the property covered by the said deed, for confirmation of their alleged possession in the said property and alternatively for recovery of possession in case they are found to be dispossessed.2. The plaintiffs' case is that Dayanidhi was seriously ill suffering from paralysis and was in a stage of coma for a quite some time before his death. He died on 9th December, 1979. On 6th December, 1979 just three days prior to his death, defendant No. 1, a cousin, fraudulently got the impugned sale deed by which Dayanidhi and defendant No. 1 purported to have sold the dwelling house in favour of defendant No. 2, the wife of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have alleged that Dayanidhi did not and could not execute such a sale deed ...
Miss. Alakha Das Vs. the Director, T.E. and Scert. and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR145
P.C. Naik, J.1. This petition involves an interesting question, namely, whether district wise reservation of seats in the B. Ed. course in the State is valid The circumstances giving rise to this petition are hereinafter stated.2. The petitioner who is a resident of the undivided Koraput district holds a post-graduate. degree in Oriya. Being interested in prosecuting the course leading to the B. Ed. degree, the submitted her application to the opp. party No. 2, the principal of the college of Teacher Education, Koraput on 22-6-1994. An Index card bearing No. KHUM-07 was issued to her. The eligibility criteria is laid down in the prospectus and rules published by the opp. party No. 1, the Director. opp. party No. 1, the Director, T. E. and SCERT, Orissa and Chairman, B. Ed. Central Selection Board. The eligibility criteria is contained in Rule 2 which provides as under :'(a) A candidate must have passed the Bachelor of Degree Examination in Arts or Science. (b) The candidate should have...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birabara Nayak and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(I)OLR207
A. Pasayat, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act'); challenging the correctness of the award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cuttack (in short the Commissioner). The New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as insurer) has raised three points in this appeal. Firstly, it is submitted that there was no report to the police about the accident which creates grave doubt about the plea of accident as raised. Secondly, it is submitted that the evidence is so unreliable that no credence can be put to it. Thirdly, it is submitted that the Commissioner has equated physical disability with loss of earning capacity. But they are conceptually different. Therefore, it is submitted that award as made cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand submitted that this being an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, the scope for interference is very l...
Nagarmal Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR630
P. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and fordeclaration that the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act do not apply to the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit which has been reversed by the first appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the present appeal.2. The material question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the vendor of the plaintiff or the plaintiff thereafter was an intermediary in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that his vendor was a raiyat and was holding theright of occupancy according to the Tenancy Law in respect of the suit land. The trial Court upon consideration of the materials on record came to the finding that neither the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff was an Intermediary and as such the suit land could not vest in the State. The first appellate Court while reversing...
Seikh Sardar Vs. Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(I)OLR619
P. Ray, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant/ respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from demolishing the disputed thatched house and from interfering with his peaceful possession. In the plaint the plaintiff has claimed that the land on which the disputed thatched house stands is not the land of the Municipality. The defendant-respondents have contested the suit inter alia claiming mat the disputed site on which the disputed matched house stands is a part of street survey field No. 212 of Ward No. 3 (old) of the Municipality and forms part of the Municipal road. The defendants have also denied any right, title or interest of the plaintiff over the suit site.2. The basis of the claim of the plaintiff is that the disputed site is a part of plot Nos. 1046 and 1047 of village Madhabapur of Berhampur Tahasil. The defendant-respondents disputed the said allegation and have asserted that the disputed sits does not appertain to or form part...
Purnabashi Mishra Vs. Raj Kumari Mishra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ori284; 1995(I)OLR606
D.M. Patnaik, J. 1. This A.H.O. is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the appeal of the defendants thereby upholding the judgment of the court below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition. The present appellant happens to be the widow of defendant Tarakanta who died during the pendency of the first appeal. 2. One Mandhata was the father of the present parties. The property relates to village Themra which fell to the share of Mandhata in a partition among his co-sharers, other taking their respective shares in other villages. Plaintiff, the youngest son of Mandhata filed the suit against his immediate elder brother Tarakanta (defendant No. I) for partition. Plaintiffs case is, Mandhata died in the year 1935 in a State of jointness when the plaintiff was nine years and defendant No. 1, the Karta of the family, managed its affairs. The plaintiff served in the police department from the year 1938 onwards and remained outside being posted at different places, ...
Debendra Pradhan, Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ326; 1995(I)OLR485
S. Chatterji, J. 1. The above Death Reference No. 1 of 1994 under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with Jail Criminal Appeal Nos. 434, 435 and 436 of 1994 was taken up together and all the cases are disposed of by this common judgment. Mr. S.K. Sahoo, learned advocate appointed in terms of the procedure as laid down in the Rules of the High Court of Orisss to defend the accused in the Death Reference also appears for the accused in the aforesaid Jail Criminal Appeals. The reference under Section 366, Cr PC has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur for favour of confirmation of the death sentence in Sessions Trial No. 28/7 of 1994. Rule 16 of the Rules of the Orissa High Court indicates the procedure to be adopted in a reference in case of capital sentence and Rule 22 enjoins that in a reference made to this Court for confirmation of death sentence, the Registrar shall immediately on arrival of the records lay the same when necessary before the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »