Orissa Court June 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. Simanchal Patra Vs. State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT271; 1995(II)OLR278
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1993 is under challenge.2. P. Simanchal Patra (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial on the accusations of having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the 'Act'), for being in possession of 1 kg. 400 grams of Opium poppy capsules without any authority, in contravention of Section 8 of the Act.3. The accused pleaded innocence.4. Placing reliance on the evidence of four witnesses examined to further the prosecution case, and the documents brought on record, the accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default stipulation of two years' rigorous imprisonment. 5. In support of the appeal, Mr. H. S. Misra, learned counsel arged that there...
Barendra Kumar Choudhury Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: 81(1996)CLT34; 1995(II)OLR252
A. Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal the only challenge is to the direction given by learned Judge, Special Court, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna to confiscate the seized rice to the State. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') along with three others faced trial for alleged violation of provisions of Sub-clauses (2 and 3) of Clause 10 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction of Sale and Movement Order, 1982 (in short, the 'Order') attracting punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act'). 2. Prosecution report was lodged by the Marketing Inspector, Bhawanipatna alleging unauthorised transportation of rice. Allegation related to transportation of 30 quintals of rice in a truck bearing registration No. AAK 5504. As accused-appellant could not produce any licence or permit to possess or transport rice, the same was seized and prosecution report was submitted, and accused faced trial. Three witnesses were examined to further ...
Purastam Tripathy and Purusattam Puria Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4211
A. Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction as recorded by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Kandrapaga for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and consequently sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment.Purusottam Tripathy (hereinafter referred to be the 'accused') faced trial for having caused serious Adjuries on Digembar Rath (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim') with intention to take away his life.2. Background facts as pertrayed by prosecution in essence are as follows:On 3-1-1992 while the victim was going towards his shop in a bicycle suddenly the accused assaulted him with a sharp cutting weapon on his left leg, resulting in serious injuries. Information was lodged at Aul Police Station by Ombendra Kumar Rath (P. W. 1), a relative of the victim, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was submi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalita Harijan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori6
P.C. Naik, J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 527 of 1991 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Arjun Harijan) and Misc. Appeal No. 528 of 1991 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sambaru Harijan).2. The facts which give rise to these appeals are simple. On 26-3-1985, 3 persons namely, (sic), Nara and Surya were killed when a truck in which they were travelling was involved in an accident. Their dependants filed separate claim petitions on 14-9-1987 which were registered as M.J.C. No. 79/87 (Smt. Lalita Harijan v. Shyamsunder) M.J.C. No. 80/87 (Sambaru Harijan v. Shyamsunder) M.J.C. No. 81/87 (Arjuna Harijan v. Shyamsunder). In each case, compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- was claimed from the owner and insurer of the truck.In the claim petitions initially filed, it was alleged that the deceased (in each case) was a labourer and also used to sell firewood. It was further averred, that on the date of the accident the deceased was travelling in the truck as a p...
The United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krutibas Lenka and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ611; AIR1996Ori81
ORDERP.C. Naik, J.1. Against the award dated 17-12-1991 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 198 of 1984, the insurer (Opp. Party No. 3) has filed this appeal.2. The Respondent No. 1/Claimant was employed as an overseer in the Horticulture Department at Cuttack. On 18-6-1984 at about 1.30 p.m. while he was coming down the Cuttack -- Paradeep Road, he was knocked down and injured by a car bearing Registration No. ORB 925 which was being towed by a van bearing Registration No. ORC 5328 which was coming from the opposite direction. According to the claimant, the accident was due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the van ORC 5328 and the driver who was on the steering of the car bearing Registration No. ORB 925 which was being towed. The claimant alleges that as a result of the impact, he was thrown off the cycle and the car ran over his thigh which resulted in grivious injury on his thigh. He also received other multiple ...
Jogeswar Behera Vs. Ghanashyam Pradhan and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ899; (1996)IIILLJ1079Ori; 1995(II)OLR355
P.C. Naik, J.1. W.C. Case No. 19 of 1988 was filed by Represent appellant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle which was involved in an accident. On notice being served, the owner and insurer entered appearance and denied their liability. In support of his case, the applicant examined himself as PW 1 and one Banamali Bhoi was examined as PW 2. One Sri Keshab Chandra Behera was examined as a witness by the opposite parties. Some documents, namely, the discharge certificate, cash memos and police papers were also filed. However, no medical evidence was adduced by the Appellant/Claimant in support of his claim.2. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Commissioner held that medical evidence having not been adduced, there was no material on record on the basis of which he could assess/ascertain the loss of earning capacity o...
Natabar Samal Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(II)OLR264
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Prayer for interim injunction in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'PCC') during pendency of the suit having been rejected by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara and confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara, plaintiff-petitioner has filed this application for interference.2. A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary for disposal of the case. Plaintiff-petitioner's case in short is that his father purchased plot No. 262 where plaintiff-petitioner and his family members are staying and also running their business. To the adjacent East of said plot is plot No. 258, which is a Gochar land and to its further East is the suit land bearing plot No. 1712 and to its further East is Cuttack-Chandbali road. Petitioner and his family members are using the suit land as their frontage for approaching the main road. Defandants-opp. parties proposed to construct a rest-shed for passeng...
Guru Prasad Mohanty and Etc. Vs. Arbitrator-cum-deputy General Manager ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori101
R.K. Patra, J. 1. By the aforesaid twin petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 7B of the Indian 'I elegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. In the first petition, i.e. O.J.C. No. 2608 of 1993, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the award made by the arbitrator under Annexure 7. Although similar prayer has been made in O.J.C. No. 61.79 of 1995 to quash the award, the same has not been appended to the writ petition. As identical and similar points were raised in both the petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. 2. The facts in O.J.C. No. 2608 of 1993 are briefly indicated. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Cuttack and is a subscriber of Telephone No. 22537 Ck. Following the disputes raised by him over the bills submitted by the department in respect of the telephone in ques...
Shasi Nayak and ors. Vs. Nisha Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ori100
A. Pasayat, J. 1. Claim of the appellants claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'Act') which was turned down by the learned Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Southern Division, Berhampur (in short, the 'Tribunal') is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. A detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary as the fate of present appeal would depend on acceptance of the conclusion about belated approach for compensation. It needs to be pointed out here that earlier a claim was made before the Tribunal, which was dismissed for default. An application for restoration of the claim application was also dismissed for default. A fresh application which was subject-matter of consideration before the Tribunal was later on filed. Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground that there was no scope for condoning the delay beyond the period of one year in terms of Section 166(3) of the Act. 3. According to learned counsel for app...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamesh Chandra Patra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ1082Ori
A. Pasayat, J.1. The award of compensation made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Ganjam, Berhampur (in short, the 'Commissioner') while disposing of a claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal under Section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 (in short, the Act').2. The claim petition by the claimant was filed with the following averments:Claimant was conductor of a bus bearing registration No. OSS 8586, owned by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner'). On February 24. 1994 at about noon time the said bus was plying from Gaiba to Rayagada. While the claimant was collecting fare from the passengers suddenly the back gate of the bus flew open and he fell down from the running bus. He was admitted in the private dispensary of Dr. Ranga Rao of Banerjee Clinic at Parlathamundi by the conductor and cleaner of the bus bearing registration No. OSP 1963, and afterward...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »